Slashdot Mirror


Your Future Home Might Be Powered By Car Batteries (bloomberg.com)

Increasingly utilities and automakers are wondering if they could use the batteries inside electric cars as storage for the entire public power grid. An anonymous reader shares a report: The idea, known as "vehicle-to-grid," is to someday have millions of drivers become mini electricity traders, charging up when rates are cheap and pumping energy back into the grid during peak hours or when the sun simply isn't shining. If it works -- and it's a big if -- renewable energy could get much cheaper and more widely used. "We really, really need storage in order to make better use of wind and solar power, and electric cars could provide it," said Daniel Brenden, an analyst who studies the electricity market at BMI Research in London. "The potential is so huge." Today, fewer than one percent of the world's vehicles are electric, but by 2040 more than half of all new cars will run on the same juice as televisions, computers and hair dryers, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Once cars and everything else are fed from the same source, they can share the same plumbing.

319 comments

  1. Take the car away by iTrawl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought they made a car specifically for this use pattern. And they took away the car and called what was left the "Powerwall". Sure, you stick it to a wall rather than ambulate it all over town, but I think it works out just fine.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
    1. Re:Take the car away by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Powerwall costs extra money, but you will already have your car battery, so there is no additional capital cost other than an inverter.

      My wife has a Tesla with a 240 mile range, and on 95% of days she uses less than 20% of the capacity. The rest could be available for energy price arbitrage.

      The car starts charging at 2 am, when electricity prices are lowest. The power companies need to fill the gap from 4pm to 7pm when power use peaks, but solar is fading.

    2. Re:Take the car away by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      We've seen this before. Early home appliances had interchangable motors, because motors were expensive. You'd buy a motor and plug it into different gadgets. And traction engines were used as jack-of-all-trades farm power sources. More recently there was an idea that a single computer would control the home.

      What actually happened was motors, motive power and CPUs got cheap enough that the benefits to having several motors, engines or computers outweighed the inconvenience, and in some cases are outsourced (e.g. Alexa).

      I imagine the powerwall will become so cheap that it will become viable for power companies to simply have a bank of them for stored power.

    3. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we become too heavily reliant on solar, the cheapest charging time of the day could invert. Charging during the day would be cheapest, which is also when your vehicle may be away from its dock.

    4. Re: Take the car away by shilly · · Score: 3

      Hence the powerwall

    5. Re:Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Powerwall costs extra money, but you will already have your car battery, so there is no additional capital cost other than an inverter.

      Not to be pedantic, but my car already has an inverter. It wouldn't take much more for it to be suitable for connection to the grid. But that's a moot point – Lexus/Toyota doesn't think we Lexus owners want to be bothered with plugging in and apparently don't have any plans to make plug-in hybrid Lexii. Not any time soon anyway.

    6. Re: Take the car away by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Employers' parking lots with plugs are going to be a big deal in the future.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lose your job and suddenly you have no power for your house.

    8. Re: Take the car away by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A powerwall designed specifically to store and discharge energy to offset peak usage is also going to be more practical to market, since electric car owners would understandably be concerned about the number of charge/discharge cycles their batteries could sustain before needing replacement.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re:Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Powerwall costs extra money, but you will already have your car battery, so there is no additional capital cost other than an inverter.

      One could argue that in civilized places not everyone has a car and that adding the engine, wheels, doors, etc to a power costs more money...
      I, for one, have no car and don't plan to buy one any time soon.

    10. Re:Take the car away by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I thought they made a car specifically for this use pattern. And they took away the car and called what was left the "Powerwall". Sure, you stick it to a wall rather than ambulate it all over town, but I think it works out just fine.

      Nah, you'll still drive the batteries powering your home around.

      In the future we're all going to be dead-ass broke and living out of our cars (which are all going to be electric so we can mooch power using an extension cord from Starbucks.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    11. Re:Take the car away by rhsanborn · · Score: 3

      Not to mention that, at the moment, batteries are very specific to a particular car, which happens to be one of the largest capital investments a family can make. What kind of life-cycle degradation can we expect from the car being a base-load for the house? I'd hate to be reducing the life-expectancy of the car because it was used floating the house. I have a feeling a pack dedicated to the purpose would be better suited to the task, and much less expensive to replace when it wears out (as opposed to taking apart the car). It also doesn't fit the use case for most families. The house-supporting battery pack will need to supply most of it's power at night, but that's when the family is expecting the car to be charging to the next day's commute. When the house or grid is at full renewable production, your car is most likely sitting in a lot at work somewhere.

    12. Re:Take the car away by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "The rest could be available for energy price arbitrage"

      Tesla has been very resistant to using the car battery for anything other than powering the car; I suspect the battery formulation is not suited for it. That said, Tesla hacker wk057@skie.net has a pretty nice off-grid setup with his 44 kW solar array backed up by 191 kWh of Tesla battery pack modules.
      https://twitter.com/wk057/stat...
      https://skie.net/skynet/projec...

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    13. Re:Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Powerwall costs extra money, but you will already have your car battery, so there is no additional capital cost other than an inverter.

      One could argue that in civilized places not everyone has a car and that adding the engine, wheels, doors, etc to a power costs more money...
      I, for one, have no car and don't plan to buy one any time soon.

      You have no need for one because you live in your mothers basement.

    14. Re: Take the car away by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't powerwall customers have the same concern? Cost of installation is marginally lower in the home or something?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Take the car away by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Lexus probably figures that people plugging in for cost reasons will buy Toyotas, and luxury buyers who care for the environment (by purchasing a car ensconced in leather, but I digress...) will spring for the full-electric. I'm sure they are missing where the two Venn circles intersect, but that might not be a terribly large group.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re: Take the car away by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The other big issue with V2G is that it needs to use much more complex charging hardware. The current offerings in Norway only work on CHAdeMO, for example.

      I think it's more likely that people will use recycled car batteries in a PowerWall type product. There won't be a shortage of them from cars written off for other issues, and most of those packs will have a huge amount of life left in them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Take the car away by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's really cool, but:

      The cycle wear on my storage batteries comes out to the equivalent of about ~29,000 miles of driving in a Model S.

      Yikes! That battery isn't going to last long if that's the yearly cycle wear!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:Take the car away by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I thought they made a car specifically for this use pattern. And they took away the car and called what was left the "Powerwall". Sure, you stick it to a wall rather than ambulate it all over town, but I think it works out just fine.

      Certainly the technology is there to plug a car in and utilize it's battery to share power. Bu I'd much prefer the Powerwall concept, as almost all the time, I'd be wanting to charge my car, not send power to other people with it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:Take the car away by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      The Powerwall costs extra money, but you will already have your car battery, so there is no additional capital cost other than an inverter.

      Yep. It makes sense from a capex standpoint; not sure if it makes sense overall. Those batteries degrade with charge-discharge cycle, and the constant cycling could shift the expense of storage directly onto the consumer--a regressive tax when we have enough electric cars (i.e. they're just cars regular folks have), since rich people don't have N cars for N*x income where x is the income of a single-car family.

      Batteries are the wrong tech for city-grade storage; and distributed batteries are the kind of fancy talk people sell to uneducated laymen (the power still has to travel all the way from the power station to the battery and the endpoint; and the battery array will create a potential difference without complex BMS across the whole grid, cross-charging; and labor to maintain the battery has to travel to the fault site). CAES is much cheaper, and recouperating adiabatic CAES is theoretically 100% efficient but in practice only about 90%, which is better than batteries.

      Unfortunately, people keep trying to cheat: rather than build a large underground tank, the last two US plants were cited with large underground caverns. Those caverns were porous sandstone and failed.

      One day, I want to see a large inconel chamber built for a heat engine. With operating temperatures above 1,800 degrees, you can sink that right into a 1,600 degree magma chamber to build a geothermal power station. That will be much more interesting.

    20. Re: Take the car away by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely that people will use recycled car batteries in a PowerWall type product. There won't be a shortage of them from cars written off for other issues, and most of those packs will have a huge amount of life left in them.

      Exactly. In many uses a relatively lightweight lithium battery is critical. But or home use, weight is seldom an issue.

      And despite being pretty ancient, the Lead/acid battery is pretty darn good technology. If they are treated right, they last for a long time. I have 15 year old pulls that are gel cell and they are going strong yet. I use them to power portable transmitters

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re: Take the car away by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Employers' parking lots with plugs are going to be a big deal in the future.

      Alaska is there already. For a different purpose, but there.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lose your job, you die. That's how capitalism works.

    23. Re: Take the car away by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      yeah. right. I've lost many jobs. I guess I have more than 9 lives. Right?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    24. Re:Take the car away by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that, at the moment, batteries are very specific to a particular car, which happens to be one of the largest capital investments a family can make.

      If you are looking at a car as an investment, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:Take the car away by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The problem with this concept since I first heard about it 7-10 years ago is it requires a low (opportunity) cost of power from solar 11am-1pm and vehicles that are plugged in, plus the same stipulation from (solar) 5-7pm. The first window often has people out at lunch (and/or parked at work where the charging cost will be higher), and the second window is at the time people are driving home from work or picking up the kids.

      The only real opportunity I see is randomly when there is high wind energy nights and weekends driving costs down. These cases are exactly where large battery systems at the wind turbines are optimal-- doing the arbitrage local to generation and maximizing your revenue.

      For emeregency backup I get it, and if your car never goes anywhere I can understand (telecommuting), but a powerwall seems like a much better tool unless all-day charging at work is free.

    26. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using a lithium battery with a limited number of usable cycles to drive the car and try to be next Machiavelli at the same time will leave you most of the times with neither. Most people do not understand the engineering in the battery nor are good speculants so they will just degrade their battery and will have to pay more for the much earlier replacement than if they have used it for driving only.

    27. Re:Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are looking at a car as an investment, you're doing it wrong.

      Not all investments are about cash. The return from "investing" in a car is typically the utility of reliable transportation. Sometimes it's just for fun, though.

      That said, most people buy a car so they can get to work and make money. If you happen to live in a place without a decent network of public transportation, then "investing" in a car might actually save you time and money while you go to the place where you make your money.

    28. Re: Take the car away by bobbied · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lose your job, you die. That's how capitalism works.

      LOL... Well, nice try. I lost my job for 6 months just as the 2000 down turn started and my youngest was born (and subsequently was hospitalized for complications) AND my former employer sued me.

      My family and I didn't starve, though we did draw unemployment (After it was initially denied). The mortgage got paid, food was on the table AND my legal fees where all paid.

      How was that possible?

      Simple. I was raised to be responsible for me and my family and I had savings and little debt (nothing but the mortgage) so we could live on next to nothing. THIS is how a capitalist manages his finances so he doesn't starve. Plus, I COULD have had a job doing all sorts of menial tasks, mopping floors, making fast food etc.

      So I contend that capitalism doesn't kill you, but lack of financial discipline and planning and lack of willingness to work sure can. However, in this country, nobody need starve to death. There are plenty of ways to feed yourself and your family in the USA.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    29. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I grew up poor, worked my way up to a tech sector job, got let go in 2001 and it almost killed me. Why? Not because of lack of financial discipline, skills, or willingness to work (I had - and still have - all of this in spades). Because there were no jobs for my skills in my area, and the places there was good paying jobs were an hour away.

      Capitalism doesn't promote those who hard work and practice financial discipline; it protects the privileged at the expense of everyone else. At that time, I lost several friends who came from the similar circumstances to drug addiction and untreated mental health problems during - all of whom were more qualified, harder working, and objectively smarter than I. Why? Because I got a couple lucky breaks and they did not. So, no, Capitalism doesn't kill - it destroys indiscriminately.

      I'm not going to posit a solution because I don't believe socialism is better. That said, kudos on you good fortune and hard work, but know that for every one person in your shoes, there are easily hundreds who are suffering through no fault of their own. The market has decided against them, and there is almost nothing they can do to change that without making extremely difficult, life-altering sacrifices - and even then it's a gamble. That's how Capitalism is designed, and it's specifically designed against them.

    30. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, batteries have a limited number of charging cycles. Then they degrade - by capacity and output.

      Whoring your wife err Tesla around town will leave used and abused and youâ(TM)ll be the one who pays to replace the batteries. Tesla will of course not cover this cost and it may already be written in your contract as usage not covered by the warranty.

      Something to consider. They will always pass the buck to the foolish. And battery charge cycle limitation is not going away anytime soon. Anything chemical will âwearoutâ(TM).

    31. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An hour commute means "it almost killed me?" Christ what a lazy fuck you are.

    32. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "lazy fuck" doesn't even begin to describe him/her.

    33. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, your sound fiscal policy combined with use of the social safety net (unemployment, hospitals, &etc.) allowed you to ride out a temporary setback beyond your own control.

      That's how humanity is supposed to work; we are tribal. The tribe benefits from extending benefits to its members, and individuals work to support the tribe, and thus we can have capabilities and capacities no one person could create, and everybody does better than they possibly could working as rugged individualists chipping our own spear points from flint.

      Ayn Rand would deny basic human nature and say you are an ubermensch who owes nobody nothing, after which Immanuel Kant would kick her in the eye socket.

    34. Re:Take the car away by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      My wife has a Tesla with a 240 mile range, and on 95% of days she uses less than 20% of the capacity. The rest could be available for energy price arbitrage.

      The car starts charging at 2 am, when electricity prices are lowest. The power companies need to fill the gap from 4pm to 7pm when power use peaks, but solar is fading.

      The only way arbitrage works is if you allow your car to not stay at full capacity in which case why have all the batteries in the first place. It's possible it could work in a situation where you arrive home with 80% capacity and you don't plan on leaving for the rest of the day so you let your car run down to 50% capacity during peak 4pm-7pm times knowing that it will be back at 100% before you are ready to leave in the morning but it still has a penalty and if we are talking about solar, the cheapest electricity will likely be midday which is when your car will likely be away from home and you will also want the battery already fully charged.

    35. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work an hour away.
      I can do that because I have a car.
      If you don't have a car, working an hour away by car is a much bigger problem.

    36. Re:Take the car away by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you are looking at a car as an investment, you're doing it wrong.

      I think you don't understand the difference between a capital investment and a financial investment. A car as the former is critical in most parts of the world. Even I in a city with excellent public transport and cycling culture could not get to work without a car and as such I would have to give up not only my generous income settling for something quite less, but also a great amount of convenience.

    37. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beat me to it

    38. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40% of Americans below the poverty line. Are you telling them that they need to save up in case they lose their jobs? It's government's responsibility to deal with systemic risk because most individuals and their families can't. Or are you one of those hard-nosed, law of the jungle assholes?

    39. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piss off the government, you die. That's how all the other systems work.

    40. Re: Take the car away by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Losing two hours every day means you waste 20% of your potentially productive time. That's not not being lazy, that's being desperate. Unless you can bill for travel time of course...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    41. Re:Take the car away by haruchai · · Score: 1

      That's really cool, but:

      The cycle wear on my storage batteries comes out to the equivalent of about ~29,000 miles of driving in a Model S.

      Yikes! That battery isn't going to last long if that's the yearly cycle wear!

      I don't think that's true. Some Model S85s have been driven over 100,000 miles with less than 5-10% capacity loss and he has more than double the capacity.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    42. Re:Take the car away by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as far as I can see, the most extreme likely case would be charging up the house at around $20/MWh and discharging at the peak when power is up around $200/MWh. But that sort of swing doesn't happen every day.

      Still with 50kWh of capacity (4 x powerwall2) that'd mean it'd cost about $1 to charge at night and would discharge for $10 during the day. You'd make $9 in arbitrage on every cycle. Except the power walls would cost about $24k, and at their rated 5000 cycles that means they'd cost you $4.80 per cycle (not counting interest, or any ability to refurbish them at the end of their life).

      However as renewables take off those rate differentials could be higher. Indeed there have been times when the wholesale rate in california has been negative, and one point last year where the rate was above $700/MWh - if you could charge your power wall for free and discharge it for $35 (while only putting $4.80 of wear on your battery) then it's suddenly a lot more attractive.

      If i had a popup on my phone that let me "sell" the right to use my electric car that evening for $35. I'd probably go for it quite often.

    43. Re: Take the car away by shilly · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But Tesla / Elon is explicit: solar + car + powerwall form a three-part closed loop system.

    44. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead acid has poor cycle efficiency though. In Li-ion you get 97% (iirc) of your electrons back - albeit at a slightly lower voltage.

    45. Re:Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's a Democrat. They think all spending is an "investment."

    46. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work an hour away, and I have no car.
      But I live in a country that understands the benefits of a reasonably reliable rail network.

    47. Re:Take the car away by Nethead · · Score: 1

      My grandfather use to drive his old car to his sawmill every day, jack it up and throw a belt around the back wheel and cut lumber. At the end of the day, remove the belt and drive home.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    48. Re: Take the car away by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Employers' parking lots with plugs are going to be a big deal in the future.

      They are already common. Many lots have at least a few spaces with chargers.

      Costco and Walmart also have chargers. My local mall has about a dozen parking spaces with chargers.

    49. Re: Take the car away by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      My sister's condo parking lot has to roll power for their block heaters on a rotation basis. I don't know if Alaska has the infrastructure for continuous peak charging, but I've never looked.

    50. Re:Take the car away by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Regular use does not cause much degradation. Just try to avoid going below 20% charge and over 80%. Also avoid parking in the hot sun, especially when the battery is nearly empty or nearly full.

      My charger is programmed to stop at 80%. I only go over that when I am going on a long trip, and then I top-off for the last hour before I leave, to minimize the fully charged time.

    51. Re:Take the car away by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Those batteries degrade with charge-discharge cycle

      That is true whether the batteries are in a car on in a Powerwall. Normal day-to-day cycling in the 20%-80% range does not cause much degradation.

      a regressive tax when we have enough electric cars

      Umm ... I think you are missing something. You charge when power is cheap, and feedback to the grid at a higher price. So this is income, not tax.

      distributed batteries are the kind of fancy talk people sell to uneducated laymen

      Indeed. Drawing peak power from cars makes some sense since the cars will already exist, as long as the peaks are not too common, long, or deep. Otherwise the storage should be done by the power company, not end users. "Powerwalls" don't make much sense for most people.

    52. Re: Take the car away by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      They do, but I should think the concern with using the car's batteries would be that you can wear out your car's battery by doing things other than travel and if the battery wears out early you can't travel until you replace it.

      Presumably your home could operate without the dedicated Powerwall while you wait for it to be replaced.

    53. Re: Take the car away by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      There are very real limits on the innate human tribal "circuitry". We're only capable of dealing with a certain number of other humans in terms of "they're just like me" and outside of that number other people only just barely exist. We absolutely know and understand that other humans exist, and even most of the time that they're people. I think this is less from tribal thinking than it is from the simple fact that we evolved in an environment where the only other humans you know are in close proximity. The people you only ever meet online or through some similar distant communication process are missing the proximity and the various primitive sense systems we base our understanding of others on do not exist in this virtual environment. Telling me about your girlfriend in Mexico is one thing, me actually meeting her is another.

      I would also posit that what we call Tribalism is actually made up of any number of behaviors which contribute in various ways to the emergent Tribal phenomeba. It therefore isn't clear that insisting the Tribe include everyone everywhere by ideological fiat can even mimic tribalistic effects, let alone harass it for some universal Human tribe. Nations aren't just "big ass tribes".

      I'm rambling like a madman now, but I'll finish up with this: We don't really understand how the brain stores its understanding of other humans. Given that, we also don't know to what extent direct contact with another human is required to get that full understanding. Given things like unconscious communication through body language and the like it's perfectly likely that we can't fully think someone is human until we meet them in person. Since we will never be able to meet every human being, nor store that information even if we could, human thinking will, in all likelihood, remain very much the same no matter how hard reformers try to train them. If Christianity couldn't do it after a few thousand years, I have little expectation that atheistic left-liberalism will be able to do so in a few generations, if at all.

    54. Re:Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This Daniel Brenden?
      Bachelor's degree, International Relations.
      Master of Arts (MA), International and Public Affairs.

      This man is a muggle: he knows not how electricity works.

    55. Re: Take the car away by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Ayn Rand would deny basic human nature and say you are an ubermensch who owes nobody nothing

      And she would be absolutely right; I don't owe you a damn thing. If I choose to give you something it's either because I see some benefit in it or because I'm feeling generous. Either way the idea that you are "owed" something just because you're incapable of providing for yourself truly is just an insane delusion dreamed up by thoughtless narcisitsts.

    56. Re: Take the car away by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      One could argue that in civilized places not everyone has a car

      Somalia mist be the height of civilisation ...

    57. Re: Take the car away by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The only way arbitrage works is if you allow your car to not stay at full capacity in which case why have all the batteries in the first place

      My ICE car has a 70 litre tank; do you really think I keep it topped off at all times? If not, do you think all that tank space is just wasteful?

      You do understand that the daily length of travel for most people can vary greatly over the course of a year, right?

    58. Re:Take the car away by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If you are looking at a car as an investment, you're doing it wrong.

      I think you don't understand the difference between a capital investment and a financial investment. A car as the former is critical in most parts of the world. Even I in a city with excellent public transport and cycling culture could not get to work without a car and as such I would have to give up not only my generous income settling for something quite less, but also a great amount of convenience.

      I dunno - to me an investment is something that will bring or is designed to bring me financial profit. Stock Market, banking, Munis.

      When we widen investments into things that lose a lot of value the second you drive off in them, well, to me that's no investment, if I have to have a car to get to work, that's a cost of doing business. I find that maintaning a distinction between things that increase my wealth, and those that might be necessary but decrease it, has worked out in my financial favor.

      I'm convinced that the whole "everything is an investment" outlook has been fueled by marketeering.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    59. Re: Take the car away by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I could see that concern if the battery behavior didn't seem to follow a gradual, linear decline. As it is, so long as you are making more money on power arbitrage than it costs to replace the battery, who cares? If you aren't making that kind of money, then you have a bad algorithm indeed!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    60. Re: Take the car away by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      My sister's condo parking lot has to roll power for their block heaters on a rotation basis. I don't know if Alaska has the infrastructure for continuous peak charging, but I've never looked.

      It has to add up to a tremendous amount of Kilowatt hours per capita.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    61. Re:Take the car away by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If you are looking at a car as an investment, you're doing it wrong.

      Not all investments are about cash. The return from "investing" in a car is typically the utility of reliable transportation.

      that's a cost of doing business, not an investment. Incredibly different.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    62. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how capitalism is designed that's how you are determined to see it. It's a shame you can't tell the difference. It appears to me the only form of society which would be acceptable to you would be something similar to the matrix which you just plug in and things are given to you and you have to do nothing for them and there's no consequences if you do or don't do anything. Good luck with that.

    63. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have to stop pretending you know anything about ayn rand.

    64. Re:Take the car away by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I dunno - to me an investment is something that will bring or is designed to bring me financial profit. Stock Market, banking, Munis.

      That is a financial investment.

      A capital investment is buying something that will not gain in value in order to enable the making of money. e.g. If you're a web designer then a computer is a capital investment. You buy it, it loses value, but the existance of it enables you to make money. In those cases you can also depreciate it's value as a tax writeoff in most countries.

      I agree with you the distinction has to be made, but they do have clear and separate definitions, and when you buy something as the cost of doing business which ends up with you owning something that has value, even if that value depreciates, that's pretty much the definition of a capital investment. e.g. A storage shed out the back of my company to house my product. It does not increase in value, but ....

      Actually I just notice you used the term wealth. Owning something as a cost of doing business by nature exists to increase wealth. I suggest we forget you used that word in that context and I give you the following distinctions:

      - Something you buy for the purpose of increasing wealth through the long term increase in value: financial investment e.g. shares.
      - Something you buy for the purpose of enabling incresaing wealth while depreciating in value: capital investment e.g. car, office supplies, building.
      - Something which you buy which doesn't increase wealth in any way: expense.

      And some things can be both depending on how they are used. My wrist watch is an expense. I own it because I like it and wear it daily. I know someone with the same wrist watch where it's a financial investment. He bought it and left it in its case 20 years ago and it has actually already increased in value. My girlfriend's wristwatch (far cheaper I may add) is a capital investment. She needs it for timekeeping when she's coaching, and she expensed it as a tax deduction as a result.

      My friend's car is an expense. She doesn't use it to get to work or live her life. It's just convenient to have when she goes on trips. My mother is a realestate agent. Her car is not only a capital investment, but it is reinvested in every 2 years as not only does having the car enable her wealth to increase, but the appearence of a new car does so even more.

    65. Re: Take the car away by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The only way arbitrage works is if you allow your car to not stay at full capacity in which case why have all the batteries in the first place

      My ICE car has a 70 litre tank; do you really think I keep it topped off at all times? If not, do you think all that tank space is just wasteful?

      You do understand that the daily length of travel for most people can vary greatly over the course of a year, right?

      There is a huge difference. Your 70 litre tank weighs almost nothing empty. An electric car takes a huge weight penalty for every extra amount of juice. Also, with a gasoline car, there are stations every 5 miles and it takes 5 minutes to fill up so even if you start your trip with a quarter tank, you can easily top off whenever you need to. We aren't there with electric cars yet. Electric cars already have a limited range and recharging while traveling is still impractical.

    66. Re:Take the car away by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That is true whether the batteries are in a car on in a Powerwall. Normal day-to-day cycling in the 20%-80% range does not cause much degradation

      These batteries would be in a car which also needs to drive around, and are added wear on the (material and labor expensive) battery. Cycling between 80% and 70% or 20% and 30% cause the same wear; and cycling between 20% and 80% (once) is the same as cycling between 70% and 80% six times.

      In other words: if the car can go 280 miles on 60% of its capacity, then cycling between 20% and 80% once is exactly the same as 280 miles of driving.

      The Tesla gets 208 miles on 60kWh, or 3.4 miles per kWh; its 80%-20% range is 124 miles. I drive that in 4 days; so every 80%-20% cycle (36kWh) would put 4 days's worth of driving on my car. Note that if you're oscillating--drawing a kWh, charging a kWh, drawing again, etc.--you're producing the same charge cycles as your total movement (if you charge-discharge 1,000kWh in minor oscillations, you've eaten 16 2/3 full charge-discharge cycles of that battery's life), so acting as a giant capacitor for the grid does a lot more than what you might see at the end of the day (i.e. you might see you went down by 2kWh or moved inside a 1kWh state of charge range, but that doesn't tell you how much wear you did on your battery).

      If it's doing a total charge-discharge of 60% of the battery capacity in total each day, that's adding 1,157 days of driving to the wear on the battery per year--on top of the 280 days of real driving. A battery that lasts me 20 years suddenly lasts only 4.

      Umm ... I think you are missing something. You charge when power is cheap, and feedback to the grid at a higher price. So this is income, not tax

      Except that the cost of the battery is not income. In the above, with a $5,000 battery (Tesla has suggested $12,000 for replacement including labor at some point; GM does their 18kWh one for $7,000), a $5,000 cost over 20 years becomes a $25,000 cost.

      In other words: you get to spend $1,000/year to be a battery for the grid. Good luck making that up with electricity arbitration of 5 cents per kWh.

    67. Re: Take the car away by bobbied · · Score: 1

      40% of Americans below the poverty line. Are you telling them that they need to save up in case they lose their jobs? It's government's responsibility to deal with systemic risk because most individuals and their families can't. Or are you one of those hard-nosed, law of the jungle assholes?

      When did that happen? I understand the poverty rate in the USA is between 12 and 13% https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/fa...

      Please make your point, but when you lie about your base numbers it doesn't look good.

      BTW.. I've lived below the poverty line a number of times in my life. In fact it was a key experience in my childhood that instilled my "I'm not going to be poor like that" motivations that me in the work force and striving to better my situation. I understand that there are poor who cannot help it, they are disabled or incapable of working for one reason or another, but please understand that there are those who are poor by CHOICE, those who *could* work but are unwilling to try. Welfare is for the first group and starvation should be for the second.

      There are basically four rules for not being in poverty. 1. Finish High School, 2. Don't have kids out of wedlock, 3. Get a job, learn a trade (i.e. WORK) and 4. Stay out of unsecured debt (i.e. Pay CASH for necessitates, don't borrow to live). If you do that, you will lower your chances of being in poverty by 90% or more. If you find yourself in poverty after following the rules, draw welfare with my compliments and let me know so I can help you find work.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    68. Re: Take the car away by suutar · · Score: 1

      It seems to me unlikely that the power company is going to let you make money through arbitrage; that would be coming directly out of their profits. The best I would expect would be that you can lower your bills to connection fee + zero net usage + taxes and fees.

    69. Re:Take the car away by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Except the cost of the battery is a sunk cost if you need the car and the wear&tear to the battery will probably be less than 5% difference. The battery will probably out live the car and be replaced because it's no longer supported than too worn.

    70. Re: Take the car away by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand how durable these batteries are. Using the argument of "there a limited number of useful cycles" is like arguing we need to conserve our usage of atoms because there's a limited number of atoms in the Universe. These batteries already have up-to 20%+ unused capacity built in to act like unused space in an SSD for wear leveling. Li-ion lasts much much longer when not fully charged or discharged, and Tesla knows this. They under-spec the batteries and program the chargers to keep the charge in the optimal range to prolong the life of the batteries. Less so with the cars than the power walls, I assume because of weight.

    71. Re:Take the car away by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Rated for 5000 cycles to be at their rated capacity. Their 100KWH bank starts off with ~120KWH of storage, and over 5,000 cycles, will be down to about 100KWH of storage. If you want to throw out your 100KWH battery bank because it can only hold 100KWH of power, that's on you. Use it another 10-20 years before it's not worth it.

    72. Re:Take the car away by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Except the cost of the battery is a sunk cost if you need the car and the wear&tear to the battery will probably be less than 5% difference.

      I asserted it's a 410% difference in usage if it's an added 60% cycling per day. That's putting a total 200,000 miles on the battery in 5 years. The average age of a car on the road today is 11.5 years.

      You're basically suggesting these batteries can last 33 years of average driving and still be of average roadworthiness, and so it's okay to burn them 3-5 times faster.

      on average the Model S lost about 5 percent of their power in the first 50,000 miles and that the degradation then slowed. Tesla's Model S hasn't been available longer than four years, but among several with 100,000-plus miles, the battery pack degradation was less than 8 percent

      So we're looking at putting maybe 23% wear on in 5 years, losing 50 miles of range. The average car on the road will have lost 100 miles of range or more. For less-expensive, smaller-capacity batteries, the loss will be larger (same amount of power cycling, smaller total charge cycle span, greater number of charge cycles).

    73. Re: Take the car away by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, until I get to zero I'd still be making money. My point is that the system should feel free to make me a profit. If I'm capped at zero, it should stop trading when it gets there - or mine bitcoins with the "extra" power :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    74. Re: Take the car away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way the idea that you are "owed" something just because you're incapable of providing for yourself truly is just an insane delusion dreamed up by thoughtless narcisitsts.

      Spoken like a true narcissist, you are a cunt.
      CIVILization means we are civil and try to look after all individuals who are children of our society because humans, such as yourself, are selfish cunts. It has zero impact on you that your tax provides for them as well as the military and road and everything else. Get it? Naaaaaaaahhhh.
      You don't owe me a damn thing, you owe the society that provided for your birth education built by all the others CITIZENS who thought it was a good idea to look after all humans because who knows what they have to offer, human potential being as grand a high as its selfishness is the putrid low. That's why smart and wise people built a society, to minimize the impacts of cunts like you, Alex.
      If none of this makes sense to you it's because you're being the worst manifestation of a human being, i.e. a selfish cunt. When you wake up, imagine washing your face, looking in the mirror and imagining the words "I will not be a cunt, Today" repeating over and over in your head because it keeps repeating and going around in your head.
      So you're right, I don't owe you a damn thing until you look at it in context. Imagine that!

  2. Batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is silly. Battery technology hasn't matured so workarounds like this aren't really solving any problems. By the time there was widespread adoption of this (my guess 5-10 years) technology will have moved on and the issues we think are a big deal will be different.

  3. Outback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outback backup power systems pretty much do this already.

    1. Re:Outback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe in telephone exchanges. Every outback property I've been on uses diesel generators. They already have multi-thousand litre diesel tanks on site for vehicles and farm equipment so a diesel generator for power is by far the cheapest option.

  4. Build the base first, then expand by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We're still far away from batteries reaching their peak performance. We develop more powerful batteries (ok, dear nitpickers, accumulators) that can store more power per kilogram of battery at a rather fast pace, and I guess discussing today what we'll do with them in 10 or 20 years when "everyone" has a battery powered car (if it ever gets to that, anyway, and the electric car isn't replaced by something completely different in the meantime) is a bit like gazing into the crystal ball.

    Let's first of all finish inventing the storage before we ponder spending the energy.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Build the base first, then expand by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's first of all finish inventing the storage before we ponder spending the energy.

      Lets not. If we spend our lives waiting for perfection before starting anything then we will never get anything done.

    2. Re:Build the base first, then expand by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not talking about perfection, I'm talking about knowing whether we're putting our money on the right horse. Right now, energy driven cars seem to be the future, but we don't even know what kind of energy storage is the best. When it comes to energy density, the ICE and petrol are still superior to other forms on a pure power-per-kg level. We should first of all figure out how to replace this, and what to replace that with, before we start planning a whole house around it only to discover that eventually we'll start over from scratch.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Build the base first, then expand by shilly · · Score: 1

      We didn't do that for smartphones, computers, screens, or virtually any other tech. Why would it be a sensible strategy here?

    4. Re:Build the base first, then expand by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because power, while critical for electronic devices, is pretty much a no-brainer. There is only one way to power your cellphone, with a rechargeable battery. You certainly won't put any kind of fuel cell into it, you won't power it with gas or an ICE. Size restraints and the mobility requirement dictate the form of power supply here.

      A house or even car is kinda different in that aspect.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Build the base first, then expand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we spend our lives waiting for perfection before starting anything then we will never get anything done.

      -Credo of the Baby Boomers.

    6. Re: Build the base first, then expand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how long will that take?

      Why wouldn't you just build a house based around a battery now? You could just replace the battery later like you can in most devices with a little forethought and planning.

    7. Re:Build the base first, then expand by Lost+Race · · Score: 2

      Right now, energy driven cars seem to be the future,

      The suggestion of a possible alternative is intriguing. Please elaborate!

    8. Re:Build the base first, then expand by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Dammit, I neglected something that could be nitpicked about.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Build the base first, then expand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not. If we spend our lives waiting for perfection before starting anything then we will never get anything done.

      AKA "The C++ Standard Development Process"

    10. Re:Build the base first, then expand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We develop more powerful batteries (ok, dear nitpickers, accumulators) that can store more power per kilogram of battery"

      Why? My basement would be quite OK with a 10 ton battery.

    11. Re: Build the base first, then expand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horses. The self replicate, so no spare parts are needed, are ecologically clean and can act as emergency food supply in a pinch. All you need is some water, hay or grain. No poisonous brake pads, no strip mining for rare earth elements, no this car contains chemicals known to the state of calimironia to cause cancer, no Iâ(TM)m late for work because of flat tyre, no more pollution when you decide to crush the car and send it overseas on a ship that dumps them in the ocean.
      With gene editing capabilities we have today we can probably engineer a horse to be able to carry an average weight murican hamburger and soda consumer with speeds close to 45 mph if not more while also having a natural umbrella/shade like bone and membrane structure to protect the rider from the elements

    12. Re: Build the base first, then expand by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Brilliant!

      This revolutionary technology will surely produce the next Unicorn!

    13. Re: Build the base first, then expand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horses....are ecologically clean

      Only if you consider having horse shit all over your streets clean.

    14. Re:Build the base first, then expand by eth1 · · Score: 1

      ...before we start planning a whole house around it only to discover that eventually we'll start over from scratch.

      You don't need to plan whole houses around this. The internal house wiring isn't going to change, because any tech that requires that will never take off (because no one is going to spend that much to retro-fit existing houses).

      You only need to leave extra room in new-construction garages for the charging/storage/grid-tie equipment. If that never happens... well, I've never met a homeowner who has complained about having to MUCH space in the garage.

    15. Re:Build the base first, then expand by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Right now, energy driven cars seem to be the future, but we don't even know what kind of energy storage is the best.

      You talk about "right now" as if it isn't a generation defining event. So I repeat: we'll never get anything done.

      And all of that is completely and utterly irrelevant as well. We don't need to see what energy storage *will be* best, we just need to implement whatever passes cost-benefit now, and if something better comes along, great, if not well we may have accidentally worked to build a better world for nothing. Damn.

      Also there are people who have been off the grid for many years who would laugh at your caution. I thought you were an Opportunist?

    16. Re:Build the base first, then expand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My R&D team assures me they'll have entropy driven cars in 10 years.

    17. Re:Build the base first, then expand by shilly · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the point you're making. The adoption curve for specific technologies within each piece of kit, whether car, house, smartphone or tablet, is sometimes driven by improvements within a core tech type such as Li-ion batteries, and sometimes accelerates with a jump from one form of tech type to another, such as CRT to LCD or LCD to OLED. There's no case where such tech types have meant that we've not adopted anything while we wait for these improvements to be finished. Indeed, the improvements drive mass adoption which creates scale economies and profits that enable the next generation of innovation.

      And yes, sometimes the improvements with a core tech type or the adoption of new tech types enables use cases that were previously infeasible, and that changes the market dynamics. But so what? That's par for the course for tech adoption too.

    18. Re: Build the base first, then expand by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      nope, go back to the time before cars and see the mess they lived in - https://www.historic-uk.com/Hi...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  5. Too much hype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The potential is so huge."

    Tesla battery pack voltage potential is around 400 V, dangerous for human life, but not exactly "huge".

    1. Re:Too much hype... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      400v isn't dangerous though, it's the amperage that's behind the 400v that's dangerous. You can go and get hit with 10,000-50,000v right now pull the wire off a spark plug on any car, it'll hurt but it won't kill you even if it's grounded through you to the earth. Low amp, high voltage. But, you can kill yourself off the starter motor which can draw upwards of 300-900amps from that 12v battery. Haven't even started with home 1ph-120v, or 3ph-208v used in industry.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re: Too much hype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few microamperes is enough to stop your heart dead, if the current follows the right path. Don't plug your bloody thumbs across 48 volts.

    3. Re:Too much hype... by bubblegoose · · Score: 1

      "The potential is so huge." Tesla battery pack voltage potential is around 400 V, dangerous for human life, but not exactly "huge".

      You need to understand the relationship between voltage and current. Nuclear submarines use a 250 V battery pack as an emergency power source. That is capable of powering an emergency motor to move the boat, keeping the lights and critical systems on, and restarting the reactor in an emergency. Compared to your car and typical house, I would consider it quite "huge".

      --
      I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
    4. Re:Too much hype... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Current flow occurs when there is a potential difference across a resistance. The battery's internal resistance, its tendency to heat up rapidly, or its lack of total power would be the only modifier. A spark plug is throwing 25,000V across an air gap with enormous resistance, so discharges a few mA; a short circuit would discharge that 25,000V at an incredibly-high amperage, and for a shorter duration (yeah that's a hell of a thing to consider, right?).

    5. Re:Too much hype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An how exactly are you planning to run those 300-900 amps through your body? If you disconnect the cables and use your body to complete the circuit, no more than few milliamps will flow (and the starter, obviously, will not turn).

      It's no different that touching both positive and negative terminal of the battery.

    6. Re:Too much hype... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      400v isn't dangerous though, it's the amperage that's behind the 400v that's dangerous.

      That's a silly point to bring up, though. You only need a few milliamps at that voltage to kill you, so unless you are arguing that the battery cannot deliver a few milliamps this point is meaningless. Current is determined only by your body's resistance via I = V/R, and your body's resistance is a function of a number of things - one of them is voltage. Dry skin will be somewhere in the neighborhood of a kOhm or two. That's 200-400mA, so you are dead.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Too much hype... by cnaumann · · Score: 1

      Grabbing the 12V terminal of a car battery that can deliver several hundred amps is not dangerous. Starter motors and other magnetic devices can throw off a nasty inductive kick that could boast the voltage at their input to several hundred volts if they are disconnected suddenly. I suppose under the right conditions, that could be fatal. But it is not really the high current that will get you, it is the boosted voltage and the time that the current flows.

      A resistive heater that pulled several hundred amps form a car battery would pose no real danger of electrocution, but there are other dangers (burns, exploding batteries).

      400VDC with any amount of current (and time) behind it is quite dangerous.

      I would not assume that a spark ignition is safe and cannot kill you.

      Static charges on you body can be several thousand volts. Discharging a static charge on your body is not particularly dangerous (to people). It is not so much that the current is low (it is not), it is that the current only flows for a very small fraction of a second.

    8. Re:Too much hype... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      400v isn't dangerous though

      This is a stupid part of your comment. While the rest is technically quite accurate, danger is the likely ability to cause harm or injury. When you consider the risk profile of 400v at 100mA, and 12v at 2000A, then the 400v is orders of magnitude more dangerous as people don't routinely run around licking wires. You can hold on to those 12v wires all day but unless you do something unlikely like jam them into a freshly opened wound, or in your eyes the odds of you feeling anything at all, let alone pain or death are incredibly low. The same cannot be said for 400v. The potential difference is what promotes current flow through insulating surfaces, and your body for all intents and purposes is a pretty damn good insulator.

      So while you're technically right that it is the current through your body that kills, your premise that 400v isn't dangerous is utterly stupid, especially given that very few 400v systems out there are limited in current to a safe level, and they sure as hell don't exist in an electric car.

    9. Re:Too much hype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, you can kill yourself off the starter motor which can draw upwards of 300-900amps from that 12v battery.

      Herpderp ohms law

    10. Re:Too much hype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your starter motor is drawing Nine Hundred Amps? What are you starting here, a Maersk container ship? Those car battery people who advertise sixty cold cranking amps would like a word with you!

      And you can kill yourself with a nine-volt battery, if you try hard enough. Skin is an excellent insulator, but blood is a wonderful conductor, and it only takes millivolts and milliamps across the heart to start interesting fibrillation.

    11. Re:Too much hype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah woah! NO! That's meme science driven by bad infographs and people who think they know anything about electricity. Your belief that somehow a starter motor can cause a car battery to kill you because it draws a few hundred amps leads me to believe you're in the latter category.*

      What kills you is quickly delivered energy (a quick few hundred joules across the heart) or a dump of power over time (severe burns). A solid 400V source will kill the crap out of you in both ways while a high voltage source that also has high internal resistance or is energy limited (a flywheel inductor or small capacitor) might not put enough energy across your body to interrupt cardio rhythm of a healthy adult.

      The current is secondary. What matters is:
      A) The voltage is high enough to overcome your body's resistance (50V is the generally accepted cutoff for dry skin)
      B) The source contains enough energy to stall your heart long enough to enter fibrillation (It isn't much! Static won't do it, but a big capacitor might and your home's practically unlimited source will)
      C) The source has a low enough internal resistance that its energy isn't eaten by it, and the voltage drop doesn't bring the delivered voltage lower than A.

      48V of heavy lead acids can deliver thousands of amps and have an internal resistance of milliohms, but grabbing the terminals will only tingle.
      Double that up to 96V and you could die if you didn't let go.
      Double again to 196V and letting go in time would be difficult. You don't want to touch this.
      Touch that same 196V source through a 10k ohm resistor and suddenly it's safe again, because now the effective voltage delivered is subject to a divider.
      A small 800V capacitor (nF range) will deliver several amps for an instant, but it won't kill you because it runs out of juice too quick to do any damage.
      A large 800V capacitor (mF range) can absolutely kill you if you touch a lead with each hand.
      A 12V car battery won't tingle even if your hands are wet. They're basically safe under normal conditions, but if you stuck probes into your chest then that very capable 12V source will seize your heart then continue right along, eventually heating your body fluids to boiling.

      Electricity and biology are complicated. Don't parrot silly "It's the current that kills you!" because it's just as wrong as saying voltage kills.

      *Well, the motor is inductive and so breaking the circuit will cause some significant back-emf voltage, but a flyback diode in the motor snuffs this event. Otherwise it could damage your car's electronics. Plus, like the capacitors above this event is energy limited, and starter motors don't have much mass. So the total deliverable energy is small.

  6. Already Available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nissan's latest model Leaf has V2G. How it affects battery performance and lifetime remains to be seen.

    Tesla could do the same, but why sell just a car when you can also sell an additional battery system?

    1. Re:Already Available by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      the point would be to have both home battery and EV. the battery can service the home and the EV battery be available to supply the grid if needed

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  7. How's this work? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    OK so I charge my car up...and then they let it discharge over night, so when I leave the next morning I have a drained battery?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:How's this work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the maths : If 80% of your time you only need 20% of your battery, how much is your storage capacity ? Multiply per car owners. How much is the storage capacity of the whole grid ?

      For the 20% of time, you'll buy cheap electricity from the storage grid. And if the storage grid is not enough (anybody needs its car this special day) then you'll buy expensive electricity from (gas, oil) facilities that run only on peak days.
       

    2. Re:How's this work? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      they wouldn't discharge the whole battery. the discharge will be shared by multiple EVs and there will be a configurable setting to say just how much charge they can take. And they will only take when the power usage spikes so from midnight on they probably won;t be taking from the EVs

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  8. Concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting how an analyst at a electricity marketing company comes up with a twist to power homes. This is nothing more than using forklift batteries in solar & wind homes for the past 20 years, only using the massive batteries in new EV. WOW Brilliant new idea!!!!

    1. Re:Concept by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      its a lot more than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... its also about creating multiple micogrids to manage a 2 way distribution of power

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  9. Seems dubious by Gavagai80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The average age of a car on the road in the USA is 11.5 years. Personally, I drive a 1998. If only 50% of new cars in 2040 will be electric, then we're looking at sometime between 2050 and 2060 for a slight majority of cars on the road to be electric. So this plan had better work with a fairly small percentage of cars being electric, or it'll come way too late to do any good.

    A better use of electric cars may be simply using their depleted otherwise-worthless batteries as part of the grid. That way you don't have to convince people to let their battery be worn down, either -- getting people to allow their car battery to be used to balance the grid will really require that they be getting free replacement batteries, because it can't be good for battery longevity.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re: Seems dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard speculation that if 20% of people switch to electric it won't be profitable for most service stations to provide petrol which would accelerate the switchover process dramatically.

    2. Re: Seems dubious by careysub · · Score: 1

      I've heard speculation that if 20% of people switch to electric it won't be profitable for most service stations to provide petrol which would accelerate the switchover process dramatically.

      Doesn't sound like Informed speculation. In 2016 there were 268.8 million vehicles were registered in the U.S. (this is all vehicles not just passenger cars, but the math is pretty much the same). This is similar to saying that gas stations were not profitable when there were only 215 million - which was 1996.

      The number of gas stations in the U.S. has actually dropped a lot of over the last 25 years, from 210,000 to 122,000 over roughly the same period as the business moved to the convenience store with lots of pumps model (fewer traditional "service stations", which are now only about 20% of gas selling places), adapting to handle much larger numbers of vehicles daily.

      No matter the exact number of vehicles on the road, gas stations have been profitable businesses in large numbers selling them gas. Also consider the sunk cost of those buried gas tanks and pump equipment, the permitting required (storing somewhat toxic combustible materials in large amounts), and the stations set up for this are going to keep selling it as long as there are huge numbers of buyers - i.e. 80% of car owners.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Seems dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math time!

      ~260million cars in the US. Say 100 million are electric by 2040. Today battery packs range from 30 - 100 kWh so by 2040 a 75kWh average capacity is a pretty good bet. That gives us 7.5 TWh of battery capacity. Average commute of 30 miles is 20% of the range for a 75kWh battery leaving 6TWh of capacity to spare for load balancing. Per capita energy use was 12kWh in 2014 across 350 million people is only 4.2TWh.

      Should be more than enough capacity for load balancing.

    4. Re:Seems dubious by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're assuming nothing changes. For one your 1998 petrol car wouldn't even be allowed in my city and the trend of banning clunkers is only increasing. You're also ignoring demographics. The age of cars varies depending on location with outside city limits cars average age being considerably older than inside. This leads to areas with dense housing and high energy usage being far more likely to have high turnover of vehicles and as has been shown already these areas are also the high adopters of electric vehicles.

    5. Re:Seems dubious by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Your assumptions are dubious. Electricity is about 1/4 the cost of gasoline per mile right now and gas prices will increase, on top of that electric prices are in decline right now because of renewable energy.

      I'd wager that as soon as electric cars hit a certain price, somewhere around $25K, that a lot of older gas cars will get pulled off the road and electric sales will spike. On top of that I expect significantly longer life from electric cars because they don't have the mechanical systems that wear out that gas cars do which will also encourage people to switch.

      Imagine for a moment never needing another oil change or any of the other routine maintenance items on a gasoline car. Imagine never needing to stop for gas again because you plug your car in at night when you get home.

    6. Re: Seems dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm predicting more new electric cars being sold than ICE by 2025. It is not very far away where it becomes a no brainer for most people due to all the inherent advantages. After that, switchover will happen relatively quickly due to scales of production, legislation, social pressure and increased difficulty in owning and servicing ICE cars (as Petrol stations will close down rather rapidly as there customer base shrinks).

      If the promise of fully autonomous vehicles also eventuates in the next ten years, switchover to all electric cars will happen a lot sooner, as most people will get rid of their second car due to the convenience, and then a large number will ditch owning their own cars not long after.

    7. Re: Seems dubious by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Math time!

      ~260million cars in the US. Say 100 million are electric by 2040. Today battery packs range from 30 - 100 kWh so by 2040 a 75kWh average capacity is a pretty good bet. ....

      Per capita energy use was 12kWh in 2014 across 350 million people is only 4.2TWh.

      Selective math is selective. You try to look 22 years into the future and estimate both the number of EVs on the road AND their battery capacity. Then for some strange reason you look at electricity use in the past, as if 22 years from now, with a gargantuan number of EVs on the road, our electrical needs will be the same as they were 4 years ago.

      That makes all of your math irrelevant. When you start with flawed premises no amount of math is going to produce a useful result.

    8. Re: Seems dubious by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      on top of that electric prices are in decline right now because of renewable energy.

      Now that's some funny stuff right there. Electricity prices here have massively increased, thanks largely to a push by the provincial government to increase renewables.

  10. Market by Bongo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I love markets, but so often, clever people try to create markets for their products, rather than solving people's real problems.
    It turns into yet another, suck the life out of the little guy, for the profit of some new venture.
    The bottom line in business should be that what you are doing is genuinely worthwhile and creates genuine value for humanity.
    And people need the integrity to answer for themselves honestly whether what they are doing it of genuine value, or merely profiting off whatever "wonderful world saving" thing is fashionable.
    It is stuff like this which reminds me we are in The Bad Place.

    1. Re:Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a genuine market for batteries in the electricity network: as ultrafast buffer for network events, e.g. when some transformer suddenly dies for whatever reason, etc. There was an example in the australian network recently, going through all the media: the battery acted faster than the humans in the network control center could and stabilized the power network. Even Musk's powerwall for home use is an expensive but useful idea for people who want to push their use of solar power off their own roof from say 75% of the time to 95% or whatever.

      What the article reports however is utter garbage by a moron who calls himself journalist who needs clicks. However I guess this doesn't make him a moron, but an asshole. Battieres are not suitable for actually powering houses in any way. They are a buffer, nothing more. Similar to the UPS for your computer.

  11. In the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may be homeless...this will solve your energy needs.

  12. Why? by DeathToBill · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't believe people still think this is a good idea. These people still don't seem to have spotted that the reason you plug your car in is so that it's fully charged when you want to go somewhere. So in ten years' time, you'll hear this conversation:

    "Quick! My waters have broken! Get me to the hospital!"

    "Wait, no, sorry, can't go, it's been cloudy all week and the grid's left our car with only 30 miles range. Can you hold it for an hour until it's charged enough?"

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:Why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Informative

      A car with ~200 mile range is going to have a ~50 kWh battery. My home uses ~2-3 kWh overnight. So by using the energy of a fully charged car overnight once, I am still at a 188-192 mile range. How's that a problem? Do you run a steel mill at home or something?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      And he drives 300 miles everyday to go to work.

    3. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not powering your home. Powering the grid. IE selling the power back at a higher price during high demand.

    4. Re:Why? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      maybe you need to do more research to get a better idea of the proposal and how it works rather than creating scare stories of how it would work

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re:Why? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Your car would be connected to the grid, you would be powering your whole neighborhood and even the steel mill a couple miles down the road.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    6. Re:Why? by swillden · · Score: 1

      These people still don't seem to have spotted that the reason you plug your car in is so that it's fully charged when you want to go somewhere

      Meh. You'll configure a minimum charge level for your car, and once it's drawn down to that level you'll stop selling power. The car will have 300+ miles per range, so for most people setting it to retain ~150 miles of charge will work just fine. Those who need a bit more will set it higher.

      Also, I expect that a huge part of home storage won't be the batter in your car, it will be a battery that used to be in a car. As car batteries degrade they'll get to a point where their storage capacity per weight is low enough that you no longer want to haul them around, and where they are problematic for long trips. But capacity per weight doesn't matter for home storage.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Why? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Well, when missus is preg, disable the car being used as back up, or set minimum charge level, or call uber, or an ambulance ...

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the A/C on in a typical house in the south, that battery would be drained dry in 24 hours. In northern areas where heating can be done by oil, gas, or steam, it is doable, but that wouldn't cover everyone's needs.

    9. Re:Why? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I thought I was the only one who had thought of the things in this excellent thread. Um, no thanks on the electric vehicle to start with - well maybe in the future but not now.

    10. Re: Why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's 1) not a terribly relevant use case here, and 2) with a free market for such electricity, you'd be able to only do this if the price gets above a threshold of your choosing (and presumably put a hard limit on the discharge level reached by such a transaction).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Why? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And I can't believe that a guy whose wife is about to deliver is to stupid to opt out of "feeding back" into the grid for a few weeks.
      And I can't believe that you are so stupid to believe that the car/charger has no option for: minimum charge.

      I can not believe that people think that a car on a smart charger will always cycle fully from 0% to 100% and back to 0% ... why would that be the case???

      And then again: a car used for "grid balance" most certainly would not do such a thing somewhere in the outbacks anyway, there are not enough cars in sparse populated areas to have a significant effect.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      With the A/C on in a typical house in the south, that battery would be drained dry in 24 hours.

      If it's hot, it's presumably also sunny. If it's sunny, the AC can use solar power and potentially use phase change storage to keep cooling the house through the night.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Only if you consent to it, and for sufficient compensation. There is no reason to do in any other way. YOU are the owner of your vehicle, not the grid.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your car will only discharge to a limit set by you. You're not going to drain your battery completely no matter where the energy goes. Computers track electricity prices and buy when it's cheap and sell when it's profitable.

  13. 18650's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since some car batteries are just a bunch of 18650, some cleaver people have already made DIY power walls with 18650's

    But these are still separate from the car and needs to stay that way for all the various obvious reasons listed above.

       

  14. Less cars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those "experts" have a dull fantasy. They always extrapolate what we have (everyone's a car) with just other gadgets ("...an electric car").

    Life would be significantly nicer if those things didn't clog our big cities, and guess what? young urbans have less and less cars. There's the hope.

    So, dear "expert" Brenden, I'd take those batteries without the car (much cheaper!), and rather bike to work or take the metro. And enjoy some greenery on the currently dirty and nearly useless city streets due to... cars!

    1. Re:Less cars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, keep living in your city. Just don't come mouthing off to us who do not want to live in a sardine can. There's much more greenery outside cities with or without cars.

    2. Re:Less cars. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      It was about 14 miles to work, and 14 miles back, and I was not about to waste an hour or more each way just to arrive all grody / sweaty both at work and at home for as long as I could do that, which would be until I got run over on some of the more dangerous roads I know of. Hilly, curvy, narrow, a bicyclist has a death wish if he rides those roads. And of course I retired 6 years ago at 64 years of age, and have doubts about really being able to pedal that far anyway every day even if the roads were safe.

    3. Re:Less cars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm lucky that I can get to and from my job via public transportation quite easily. However, I do agree with you on cycling. I live in a town that is "bike friendly". In one month, I saw three hit and runs, and before that, I helped put up ghost bikes [1]. So, it isn't a safe way to go, even though a lot of busybodies say it is because it is "one less car". If the chance of being hit was the same as the chance of being shot, the town I would be living in would be considered on par with Venezuela.

      If you want one less car, feel free to buy a moped or motorcycle. Just make sure to sign your organ donor form.

      [1]: Trick with ghost bikes is to use Permatex Red on all screw parts, the U-lock gets Loctite Green squirted in (to secure the tumblers), then a broken key part and the epoxy treatment to ensure it won't be opened other than via an angle grinder or blowtorch.

    4. Re:Less cars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My commute is in in-town Atlanta and only about 5 miles, and I've been driving pretty much the same route for nearly 20 years.
      It used to bug me when another bike-commuter would appear during rush hour on the main thoroughfare trying to "claim the lane", riding past everyone at the red light to make us all pass him again, and such-like annoying habits.
      Then I realized that I never saw one of those last more than a month and usually not even two weeks, so now when I see one I just feel sad for his family.

  15. Right so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the generators can at will suck out power when itâ(TM)s cheap, say during the early morning, and then sell it back to you to charge up before peak hour travel when you need the juice to get your car to work.

    1. Re: Right so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      More like you tell your car how much power your willing to sell and at what price. When the conditions are met it sells the power back to the grid. You probably also set what price you are prepared to buy power at to charge your battery.

    2. Re: Right so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if price is fixed at different times if the day then you just set the hours you are willing to sell and the hours you are willing to buy.

    3. Re: Right so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when demand goes through the roof during a heat wave and you have sold your power, but now the price is way above your purchase threshold?

  16. Country dependant by DrYak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In some country, petrol IS NOT the thing stations profit the most.

    At least in several places in Europe, stations profit the most from their shops (selling snacks and other small useful item. At a high price than in the city, but more convenient or in an emergency, as they are open 24h and on your way on the highway) and their cafe (taking breaks is heavily recommended by massive campaign and even legally required in some driver professions)
    In fact several chain of stations are actually owned by chain stores.

    The petrol is mostly use as a way to attract people to the shops/cafes.

    As soon as electrical cars became a thing some stations started to install charging station as a way to attract even more customer to the shops and cafes.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's true in most countries. The profit margin at most stations is pennies per/L, in Canada it's around 0.02-0.045/L. The US? Most stations make around 0.10-0.25/Gal. Thing is, here in Canada we have those charging stations in places like that and they don't draw people in. People simply leave their cars and fuck it up for everyone else. When it takes 30min-2hrs for a charge instead of 8mins for a fillup, you can already see the problems. In Ontario, if we had massive numbers of electric vehicles most small stations would need 40-100 bays to recharge. Distances are too large, the same in the US. Unlike Europe, people being on the road 5-6hrs for a commute is common all across north america.

      An example: A person living in London, Ontario would spend 2.5-3hr/one way to commute to Toronto. It's cheaper to drive, then take the train or live in the surrounding communities(Brampton/Mississauga/etc where a starter home can be $1.4m+) in the GTA for most people, unless you're making a combined income over $150k/year. Even at that, you're going to find times where you're under that 60-day lose your job and lose your home. Even at that, you're probably considering finding a new place to live because you're being priced out of your own neighborhood. Another example, I was looking at house prices in Woodstock, Ontario. A house built in 1810, that is under 1600sqft(148sqm) with knob & tube wiring, galvanized pipes, maybe windows from the 1940's(single pane w/winter storm windows that have to be attached). Were running in the $340k range, the average income in Woodstock(and the county of Oxford) is around $43k/year.

      These ideas are good in high-dense urban areas, anywhere else they fall flat on the realities of the world.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Country dependant by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      As soon as electrical cars became a thing some stations started to install charging station as a way to attract even more customer to the shops and cafes.

      And that might bring in some traffic, but most people are going to be recharging from home on their daily commute. Charging walls will never be as popular or bring in as much traffic as petrol pumps did.

      Worse yet for these convenience stores, it might be easy for Grocery stores, Department stores like Walmart, etc... to put up charging ports outside their stores - maybe even give free power if you spend over £X ($Y). The fuel station/convenience store concept is long-term doomed in most places. Touristy areas they may survive longer.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Country dependant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as electrical cars became a thing some stations started to install charging station as a way to attract even more customer to the shops and cafes.

      Yes, an electric car driver is the perfect customer. He stays longer than the petrol folks, and the charging is fully automatic once hooked up - so he don't need to stay with the car during charging.

      So he'll buy food or a newspaper just to pass the time. And something to keeps the kids occupied . . .

    4. Re:Country dependant by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Knob and tube wiring! What a joy. Well, you couldn't have an EV there anyway.

    5. Re:Country dependant by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Distances are too large, the same in the US. Unlike Europe, people being on the road 5-6hrs for a commute is common all across north america.

      You vastly overestimate how common this is.

      Even in cities like Los Angeles where large cities have sprouted in the desert for long commuters to buy cheap houses, the vast majority of Los Angeles commuters do not live in such cities.

    6. Re:Country dependant by be951 · · Score: 2

      people being on the road 5-6hrs for a commute is common all across north america

      Unless you mean per week, you are way off. Average commute in the U.S. is about 27 minutes (one way). About 7.3% of U.S. workers commute an hour or more each way. For comparison, about 8.5% walk, bike or take public transit (and those groups are not mutually exclusive. About 23% of those with commutes more than an hour use public transportation).

      So almost all commuters who drive themselves to work could simply charge at home if they drove an EV. Even current ones with the lowest range (about 58 miles for 2018 Smart Electric) could accommodate most (68%) of commutes, which are 15 miles or less each way according to the U.S Bureau of Transportation Statistics. And other low-ish range options (Fiat 500e @84 miles or Honda Clarity @89 miles) could handle up to about 89% of commutes (about 21% are 16-30 miles, along with the aforementioned 68% that are 15 or less). And there are several other current EV offerings (Leaf, e-Golf, Soul EV, Focus Electric, etc...) with ranges of 110-150 miles, and a few (Teslas and the Bolt) greater than 220 miles.

      tl,dr: commuting distance is not a problem for current generation EVs for 90+% of U.S. commuters. (In Canadia, your mileage, or kilometerage, may vary -- and they're actually better according to the slightly dated stats here which says 89% of commutes are 24km or less)

    7. Re:Country dependant by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Unlike Europe, people being on the road 5-6hrs for a commute is common all across north america. An example: A person living in London, Ontario would spend 2.5-3hr/one way to commute to Toronto.

      If that's common I'd say insanity is common in North America, in Europe you'd rather rent a broom closet than spend six hours a day driving. I know all of three people that have had a commute close to that and it was a highly temporary thing being stretched between needing a new job and family commitments.

      These ideas are good in high-dense urban areas, anywhere else they fall flat on the realities of the world.

      You make it sound like living in a city is the exception and not the norm. I live in Norway (215th in population density), even less sparsely populated than the US (188th in population density) but people lump together and the trend is cities and towns grow, rural areas are barely holding or depopulating. About 80% of the population live in communities that take up 0.62% of the area.

      Rural communities: 19%
      Communities of 200-1000 people: 6%
      Communities of 1000-10k people: 18%
      Communities of 10k-100k people: 22%
      Communities of >100k people: 36%

      I don't have good data on how that maps to commutes, but I think pretty much all who live in a >10k town either work in that town or it's a suburb and they work in the nearby big city. And that's over half the population, it doesn't have to be a solution for 99%.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Country dependant by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The petrol is mostly use as a way to attract people to the shops/cafes.

      Sorry but that is simply not the case for nearly all petrol stations. Actually where it is (highway rest stops) petrol also happens to have the highest profit margin.

      There's no station in Europe that survives as a shop with petrol just bringing in customers for something else, even the highway service stations. You are however leaning towards being right by profit margins. Petrol has the lowest profit margin of any product sold at a service station. The highest profit margin is actually in the coffee, specifically single espresso. But petrol has a ludicrous amount of volume that makes the ~3-27c /L profit worthwhile, even on the low end.

      The shop exists as a free (as in beer) addition. The space is already there and the customers are already coming in so why not offer them something with a higher margin on the off chance that the occasional person buys something.

      Also you may have noticed the rise in "express" stations in Europe. It's been a while since I've been at a petrol station that even has a shop. I typically now only fill up at those places that are nothing more than a roof over a dispenser which allows you to swipe a credit card. They make a lot of money too. (Retail is approximately 20% of the profit for any oil company covering all parts of the process).

    9. Re:Country dependant by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      people being on the road 5-6hrs for a commute is common all across north america.

      WTF. Do you really mean that per day?! (It's less shocking if you meant per week.).

      That's basically a second job to pay for the privilege of working your first job. Either death or prison would a merciful step up from that.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    10. Re:Country dependant by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Where in hell do you get your numbers? US Gas station's receive anywhere from $0.06 to $0.10 per gallon above what they paid for the gas which is barely enough to cover their costs and maintenance. Almost all gas station profits come from the convenience store side.

      Now there are a few exceptions where states mandate higher profit margins and hence higher total margins for the station but the vast majority are making pennies per gallon which goes immediately to cover their costs.

    11. Re:Country dependant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are way off in thinking most commuters have a situation where they could charge overnight at home. That's only the subset of commuters in suburbs who own or rent homes with attached garages. In metro areas, many commuters live in apartments and other multi-family dwellings and do not have the option of retrofitting their parking with a charging circuit. Many people park on streets, and many others have a parking lot or garage but not separated from other residents or the public and not associated with their own rental unit's power system in any way.

    12. Re: Country dependant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is that most people will be charging at home overnight, or at carparks at their destinations. Most petrol stations will close, except perhaps on the interstate.

    13. Re: Country dependant by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      If that's common I'd say insanity is common in North America, in Europe you'd rather rent a broom closet than spend six hours a day driving.

      It's not. I spent two decades of my life living in the same areas which he spoke about; the longest commute I ever had was about an hour and a half, which really sucked. I left that job exactly because I hated driving 3 hours every day.

      The shortest commute I ever had was a 15 minute walk when I was living in downtown Toronto.

      In North America we do generally have longer commutes than is typical in Europe. We also do tend to drive longer distances to visit family and friends, or for business trips, or just for sight seeing. We definitely drive more overall. But the idea that commuting 6 hours every day is in any way "normal" ... that's just absurd.

    14. Re: Country dependant by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      But petrol has a ludicrous amount of volume that makes the ~3-27c /L profit worthwhile, even on the low end.

      Stations around here make less than 1 cents per liter on average after credit card fees. They make more if you pay cash, but that's rare enough that we can probably just round up to 1 cent per liter.

      On average a person might buy say 50 litres of gas. That's $0.5 per customer. That fillup takes about 5 minutes.

      Say you have 8 pumps. If cars are constantly streaming in, literally bumper to bumper, your total profit is $1,152 per day. But, of course, that's not realistic; in the dead of night you'll have very few customers, and there are ebbs and flows throughout the day, so, if I'm being generous, you might see half of that. We're down to $576.

      If you only have one employee working 24/7 at $10 per hour, you're down to $336 per day. That's $10,080 per month. Subtract from that your taxes, maintenance costs, utility costs, franchise fees, insurance, and countless other costs of doing business, and you're lucky if you see a third of that.

      For smaller stations with only 4 pumps and even fewer customers the situation is far more grim. Their costs would easily exceed their profits.

      If the gas stations in your area are making 27 cents per liter then sure, they are almost certainly doing very well on gas sales alone. That's not the case in North America, by any stretch of the imagination.

    15. Re: Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      In North America we do generally have longer commutes than is typical in Europe. We also do tend to drive longer distances to visit family and friends, or for business trips, or just for sight seeing. We definitely drive more overall. But the idea that commuting 6 hours every day is in any way "normal" ... that's just absurd.

      You apparently haven't been living here for a while then. Otherwise you'd know that it's become a big enough problem that the Liberal Party of Ontario is trying to buy votes by pushing a high-speed rail line from Windsor, to London, to Toronto specifically for commuters. You're also forgetting all those lovely GO lines, where you can spend 2hrs one-way.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You vastly overestimate how common this is.

      You mean I vastly underestimate how common this is. LA is a poor example anyway, that would be like comparing Toronto to Peterborough. Just wait until you get some some of the really remote places in Canada, where it's cheaper to fly *in* daily then it is to drive.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Stat can's data is rather a mess. Especially since they use what's a combination of "rural-urban" for instance. You're also forgetting about the realities of cost. That EV is around 4x the cost or more then a plain old gas car, and around 6x more then a simple cheap used diesel. On top of that once you "get outside of the corridor" places where you can charge them dry right up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      London-Toronto is ... if you're lucky a 5.5hr round-trip drive per day. When I was commuting in to Toronto, and I got hit in a traffic jam which is blindly common. Sitting for 3hrs on top of the normal commute time was normal too. And big enough of an issue that the current political party is trying go buy voters with a high-speed rail line from Windsor to London to Toronto.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and to think it doesn't have to be replaced every 25 years like what they mandated with 14/3. Does have the downside of having no grounds, and the occasional problem with hot splicing though.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    20. Re: Country dependant by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You say average, I say minimum. The terminal gate price of gasoline and diesel varies greatly, and I don't know of any oil company that has a policy of selling fuel at below cost. I knew one of our competitors (a super market chain) tried to do it, but fortunatley that happened in a country with strict monopoly laws so they got slapped down for that practice.

      You are right, the situation is grim in general for many individual operators, just as it is for franchisees of actual retail chains. We hear about all the profits from the likes of Starbucks, but the individual restaurants are barely breaking even.

      But there are no service stations in the general case that stay afloat as a result of their retail business and use petrol to bring in customers. Though you may find the odd-ball out west back country somewhere where the service station is also the local pharmacy and also the local grocer etc. Those people obviously are not included in this discussion since they aren't primarily a service station.

      You're painting a grim picture from you 1c example but let me paint you a grimmer picture: 1 in 30 people buy something from a service station in countries where smoking rates are low. Add countries which are stupid crazy dependent on cigaretts and you get to about 1 in 10, and cigaretts are quite a low margin product because in those countries they are available everywhere which eliminates the convience factor. And while I said the shop exists as free as in beer, that only takes into account the space. In addition you need to manage a shop, stocktake, repurchase, and my own personal favourite: spoilage. One of our stores proudly announced that they broke records for the amount of milk they sold in one week, only to have that profit completely eliminated by throwing away 3 bottles (2 went off, one broke while stacking the shelf).

      So let me be clear as I work in the industry I see this first hand, if a shop can't surivive on selling fuel it gets either shutdown, or defranchised depending on how it is setup. The exception for that is the aforementioned country general purpose stores, and they are not run by oil companies but rather the bowser and petrol is a product sold like any other on the shelf (which is also why the entire shop isn't plastered with the company logo).

    21. Re:Country dependant by L0ngW4ng · · Score: 1

      2.5-3hr/one way to commute

      I am living in Europe. Just yesterday I quit a decently paying job because the commute took me one hour and fifteen minutes (one way). This is unbearable in the long term. It"s inconceivable to me how anyone can put up with so much time of their life wasted just to get to work and back again. I'd rather be poor than a corporate slave like this.

    22. Re:Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I am living in Europe. Just yesterday I quit a decently paying job because the commute took me one hour and fifteen minutes (one way). This is unbearable in the long term. It"s inconceivable to me how anyone can put up with so much time of their life wasted just to get to work and back again. I'd rather be poor than a corporate slave like this.

      If you live in a large country, like Canada, US, Russia. That's not really a choice in some cases. Canada for example, ~15m people which is nearly half the population of the country live between Windsor and Ottawa along a narrow stretch of highway. ~10m of those live between Hamilton and Oshawa. Sure, you might be able to find a job close by, but more likely you're going to be commuting because you're out-priced to buy a house and you can't afford to move into rentals because they're either already full of the poor/lower income or because those rents are far too high. A decade ago when I was living with my ex in Toronto, we were a block from Greektown which is basically downtown Toronto. It was right around $1500/mo for a basement apartment that was 400sqft(37sqm), it's only gotten worse since then.

      The disparity in wages vs availability is far beyond what you see in the US or even Europe, far beyond Europe. A friend of mine who works for IBM in Toronto and clears and easy $500k/year commutes from Kitchener because if he wanted to live within driving distance(say 30-40m), the starting house prices begin at $2.4m. Where he can buy a house in Kitchener for $480k that's 15 years old and been renovated. That still puts him in a 40-50min one-way commute every day.

      Ontario itself is well, broken. No other way to put it. There's a government that's pushed anti-industry, service-only jobs for the last decade. Then decided to push through $15/hr minimum wage believing that this would "cure the disparity." The only thing that's happened is, low income got a bump...and everyone else stayed flat. So if you were making $22/hr your buying power is now far less then what it was 2 years ago when the min. wage was ~$13/hr. Round that out with high energy prices? Well the middle class is a rapidly shrinking class here, and if you're in that sub $30k/year spot? I sure hope you enjoy food banks, and living pay to pay and maybe keeping the lights on and roof over your head. It's bad enough the government had to outlaw winter electricity disconnection for fear of large numbers of people freezing to death.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    23. Re:Country dependant by be951 · · Score: 1

      Stat can's data is rather a mess. Especially since they use what's a combination of "rural-urban" for instance.

      In the U.S., we say suburban. But that has nothing to do with the numbers we were looking at, right? Sounds more like you're saying that the stats are hard for you to understand, not that they are inaccurate.

      You're also forgetting about the realities of cost.

      You might almost have a fair point there -- at least something to discuss-- if it wasn't a bullshit attempt to move the goalposts. Obviously, you know very well that what you said, and what I responded to, was:

      Distances are too large... people being on the road 5-6hrs for a commute is common all across north america.

      And we've clearly put that bit to bed, haven't we?

      However, I would very much like to see the new cars selling for $7,250-$9,250. That would be 1/4 of the $29-32K MSRP of the Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Kia Soul EV, eGolf, Fiat 500e, Focus Electric... maybe a couple others in that range, or on the slightly higher end, the Bolt's $37K. I don't know any cars that sell for those prices new in North America, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Also, we'll overlook the fact that I am rather generously using just price. Cost (in the U.S. specifically) can be around $10K lower depending on your state of residence due to tax incentives (up to $7500 federal, various state rebates and credits). And let's not even get started on operating costs. Gas is relatively expensive compared to electricity. But since we weren't even talking about cost to begin with and we've already dealt with your 4X cost claim just on price (unless you're ready to show me the new cars in the $8K range), running the numbers seems a bit much.

    24. Re:Country dependant by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Mandated replacement of 14/3 NM every 25 years? Is that Canada specific? (Do you have the arc-fault circuit breaker requirement for residential that the US has?)

    25. Re:Country dependant by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You mean I vastly underestimate how common this is. LA is a poor example anyway, that would be like comparing Toronto to Peterborough

      So you know absolutely nothing about the Los Angles area.

      There are mountains that surround the LA basin. On the other side of those mountains, there's some desert. And then more mountains. And then more desert.

      The cities I'm talking about are in that second batch of desert, with a 2-3 hour commute to the LA basin. In other words, it's exactly like the example you provided. And of the tens of millions of commuters in the LA area, tens of thousands live in those cities. That, by definition, means there's a small fraction of commuters doing this.

      Just wait until you get some some of the really remote places in Canada, where it's cheaper to fly *in* daily then it is to drive.

      And the majority of people commuting to that city do not do this. That's the entire point. While it may be cheaper, the vast majority of commuters don't do this. If they did, those areas would no longer be "remote" because they'd be large cities in their own right.

    26. Re:Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      In the U.S., we say suburban. But that has nothing to do with the numbers we were looking at, right? Sounds more like you're saying that the stats are hard for you to understand, not that they are inaccurate.

      No, because in Canada, suburban is different then rural-urban. An example. If you live in Toronto, but live in Mississauga you're living in a suburban city. If you live in London, you're urban. If you live in Woodstock, Tillsonburg, New Hamburg and so on you're rural-urban. It's not that they're hard for "me" to understand, but maybe it's hard for "you" to understand that the methodology is different.

      You might almost have a fair point there -- at least something to discuss-- if it wasn't a bullshit attempt to move the goalposts. Obviously, you know very well that what you said, and what I responded to, was: And we've clearly put that bit to bed, haven't we?

      No, because you've already missed it. Yeah, the average age of a car on the road here in Ontario is about 15 years. You can find a $15k car brand new if you're willing to pressure the dealership(aka know how to negotiate). But all of those vehicles you mentioned run between $40k-68k up here in Canada, that's with the tax incentives.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    27. Re:Country dependant by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So you know absolutely nothing about the Los Angles area.

      Nice assumption, really don't make an ass out of yourself. And no, it's not exactly like the example I provided. I guess I can use your "so you know nothing about the GTA."

      And the majority of people commuting to that city do not do this. That's the entire point. While it may be cheaper, the vast majority of commuters don't do this. If they did, those areas would no longer be "remote" because they'd be large cities in their own right.

      Sure you keep believing that, let me know when you discover the $70/daily commuter flights(turboprop) from "a city" to your job, they exist up here. Those areas are remote, the definition of a city starts at a population of around 1000-4000 people. I'll even give you a hint, it's still south of the arctic circle by over half a day.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    28. Re:Country dependant by be951 · · Score: 1

      No, because you've already missed it.

      Wow, you are really struggling. Let me walk you through it. You tried to say that long commutes are a problem for wide adoption of EVs (which I will call "The Point") . They're not. I explained this in detail and laid out the numbers, refuting "The Point". But instead of substantively responding to that and staying on "The Point" you tried to raise a different argument, as if it had any bearing on what we were talking about (it doesn't).

      And then? When I mention that your complete lack of substance to support "The Point" indicates that we've put "The Point" to bed (i.e. settled the matter), you act as if I were referring to your alternate argument. I don't know if that is just bad reading comprehension, or another attempt to incorporate extraneous matter into "The Point". Either way, I think you can do better.

      By the way, we also settled your alternate argument that electrics are 4X the cost of gas cars.

      You can find a $15k car brand new if you're willing to pressure the dealership(aka know how to negotiate). But all of those vehicles you mentioned run between $40k-68k up

      Two things to say on the above:
      1. 40 is not 4X of 15, so you're already wrong using your own numbers.
      2. MSRPs or GTFO

    29. Re: Country dependant by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You apparently haven't been living here for a while then.

      Article from last year:

      "Average commute time in Toronto longest in country at 34 minutes"

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

      the Liberal Party of Ontario is trying to buy votes by pushing a high-speed rail line from Windsor, to London, to Toronto specifically for commuters

      I never knew anyone who commuted from London to Toronto. The very idea of it is insane, and you're a lunatic if you're actually doing it. You're also a lunatic if you believe that there are enough such maniacs to actually influence government spending priorities.

      That said, if the government does end up building a high speed line then commuting from some of these areas will actually become a viable alternative. Which is why they proposed it. Not for lunatics like you who already do it, but to create an opportunity for others to work in and/or visit the GTA while living well outside of it.

      Stop pretending that you're normal; you're giving people weird ideas about what Canada is actually like.

  17. Same Plumbing? by infuriatedweasel · · Score: 1

    Like through a series of tubes?

  18. Full accounting of costs by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The Powerwall costs extra money, but you will already have your car battery, so there is no additional capital cost other than an inverter.

    Not quite. You also have to factor in the cost of the additional cycles on the battery pack, the additional warranty and maintenance costs that may result, the depreciation on the vehicle from this additional use, and perhaps a few others I'm not thinking of before I've had my morning caffeine. Doesn't make using the car battery a bad idea but one should have a full accounting of all the costs. I think depreciation likely would be the biggest cost since inverters probably wouldn't be super expensive once they are produced at scale. I could easily see the added depreciation being a few thousand dollars though you obviously wouldn't be hit with that until you sell the vehicle.

    Personally I see car batteries as more of an emergency standby solution than a routine use. Not much use for powering the home if you have to take the car to work. Could be a nice little extra layer of security for power outages or to manage energy costs and usage though.

    1. Re:Full accounting of costs by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I don't have a powerwall, solar panels, or an electric car. But I could get on board if I had all of those things. Let's say I had a 200-mile range car. My commute is 10 miles. The vast majority of the time, I only need 20 miles of charge - let's double it for safety to 40 miles. That means I'm only using 20% of my battery's capacity. I could see telling the car to go ahead and try to make me some money with the remaining 60% most of the time, overriding this when I know I have a trip or something. The algorithm it uses to "trade" could factor in depreciation and whatnot before deciding to make the transaction.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Full accounting of costs by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      The Powerwall costs extra money, but you will already have your car battery, so there is no additional capital cost other than an inverter.

      Not quite. You also have to factor in the cost of the additional cycles on the battery pack, the additional warranty and maintenance costs that may result, the depreciation on the vehicle from this additional use, and perhaps a few others I'm not thinking of before I've had my morning caffeine. Doesn't make using the car battery a bad idea but one should have a full accounting of all the costs. I think depreciation likely would be the biggest cost since inverters probably wouldn't be super expensive once they are produced at scale. I could easily see the added depreciation being a few thousand dollars though you obviously wouldn't be hit with that until you sell the vehicle.

      Personally I see car batteries as more of an emergency standby solution than a routine use. Not much use for powering the home if you have to take the car to work. Could be a nice little extra layer of security for power outages or to manage energy costs and usage though.

      Exactly! As I understand it, even the most advanced of the batteries that we have today are limited by the number of power-cycles. Using a car for this on a continual basis would quickly reduce the battery lifetime, range, etc. As a car owner, why would you do this unless there is some reward to offset the value loss?

      The owner/user is responsible for any liability resulting from issues when charging the battery pack as part of their insurance. Who accepts liability for any battery failures when the car is providing power to the grid?

      A lot of these things sound good on paper but the reality usually ends up being much messier.

    3. Re:Full accounting of costs by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Exactly! As I understand it, even the most advanced of the batteries that we have today are limited by the number of power-cycles. Using a car for this on a continual basis would quickly reduce the battery lifetime, range, etc.

      The idea is not to discharge the car, because you wouldn't have anything left to drive on.

      And modest draws and charges don't count for a power cycle. That just happens every day.

      Regardless, I'm not keen on the idea, and since in home use, weight is not a factor, so the lead acid family of batteries would function very well for home storage. Take a bank of them and store them under a false floor in the garage or under the base of a patio if you want them outside. Then they are there all of the time.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Full accounting of costs by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      A fleet of Teslas out there it would represent an interesting amount of buffer capacity, and buffer capacity is very important. With a realtime market price driven mechanism the batteries could be charged when electricity is cheap and discharged when it is expensive(the cost of electricity fluctuates all day long and at peak moments it is very high) . This would be more than an emergency standby but the idea of the emergency buffer is certainly part of it.

    5. Re: Full accounting of costs by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      so the lead acid family of batteries would function very well for home storage

      I suppose lead-acid car batteries would suffice if you didn't draw them down much each night... but what's the point if you can't use your full capacity without damaging 'em?? This calls for marine or deep cycle batteries that don't automatically become damaged when drained heavily.

    6. Re: Full accounting of costs by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I do see one advantage that a larger number of [presumably far cheaper] conventional car batteries could have over a smaller number or marine batteries (even if the effective capacity were the same): greater amps. However, that might be a solution to a largely non-existent problem; I'm not sure.

    7. Re:Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My commute is 10 miles.

      This is an easy bicycling distance. You don't need a car for that commute at all.

    8. Re: Full accounting of costs by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      That's what a friend who lived off-grid used. Shed full of marine batteries. Cheap, durable, and easy to replace. About every 3 months he'd test all the batteries, replace any that were wearing out, close the door, and maintenance was done.

      Compared to a power wall, that was far cheaper, stored vastly more energy, and provided higher power draw. The only thing it didn't have was looks.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    9. Re:Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not every place of work has shower facilities. Some people, even healthy people, sweat quite a bit, even on a 10 mile ride.

    10. Re:Full accounting of costs by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It would be suicide. The roads have no shoulder for the most part - very bike-hostile. I do need a car, but only if I want to live.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he lives in a heavy snow area like I do, and for 4 or so months a year a bicycle is out of the question. Stop judging.

    12. Re:Full accounting of costs by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Some people live where there are:

      Mountains (there is nearly 500 of elevation difference between my home and work and it's not a straight grade, its the equivalent of up and down that 500 probably 3 times).

      Snow (There is snow on the road during the winter here and it would be suicide to be on a bike during such times).

      Professional dress is required and work doesn't have facilities to clean up after a sweat inducing ride.

    13. Re:Full accounting of costs by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      My commute is 10 miles.

      This is an easy bicycling distance

      says the asshole AC who doesn't bike 20 miles a day in traffic...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Full accounting of costs by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The average USA house hold only uses 30KWH per day. Most of the marketed electric cars could completely run a house for 2-3 days. I use a lot less than the average. I could probably go a week. even 5%-10% of your battery would be enough to make a sizable dent in peak usage. Most of the warranties are for a full battery cycle every day for 10 years, and even then the battery will still be around 80% capacity. The cost to produce a li-ion battery has gone down 25% between 2016 and 2017. They're getting cheap.

    15. Re: Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cranking amps are different than amp hours.

    16. Re: Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ebikes solve that problem, while still giving you quite a bit more than zero exercise.

    17. Re: Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lead-acid battery dies after a certain number of Ah has been drawn. Even if you treat it well, the degradation is pretty much linear.
      A Li-ion battery OTOH has a lifespan that increases exponentially if you keep from using the top and bottom 20%, keep it from getting hot and charge it slowly if it's cold.

    18. Re: Full accounting of costs by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Biking in snow sucks balls. Good luck with that.

    19. Re:Full accounting of costs by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      I could see telling the car to go ahead and try to make me some money with the remaining 60% most of the time

      By this I assume you mean have the car operate as a sort of ride-hailing service for the general public? Sounds like a real quick way to get your car destroyed by some fucking jackass.

      What kind of hyper-trusting jackasses come up with this shit? Even Liberals admit humans are pretty fucking shit, why would anyone think something like this could work? Even if the rider can't steal your car, they'll trash it because they don't give a fuck about you because you don't actually exist to them save as a pathetic abstraction taught to them in school and which has no modulating impact on behavior whatsoever.

      "Go ahead and do the stupidest and most reckless things you can think of, our actuaries show it probably won't blow up in your face." Brilliant.

    20. Re:Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a shoulder to cycle on, you ride on the road like a car. Traffic approaching from the rear has to slow down until it is safe to pass you, allowing at least 1m space between you and them.

      If it doesn't work like that in your country then perhaps ask yourself why fellow members of your society are trying to kill you?

    21. Re:Full accounting of costs by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      ask yourself why fellow members of your society are trying to kill you?

      I don't know, but I know I'm not going to change it by being a martyr.

      And of course then there is the winter, where it is dark when I leave work. And the mornings when I need to drop off kids at school for activities. And the afternoons when I need to take the kids to their sports practices and games. Not everyone lives the swinging single life.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    22. Re:Full accounting of costs by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      By this I assume you mean have the car operate as a sort of ride-hailing service for the general public?

      Well then let me stop you right there... no, that's not what I meant at all. Did you read the summary? This story has nothing to do with ride sharing, and everything to do with using the battery pack in your car to store cheap power and sell it back at a higher rate. I was saying that I could safely allocate 60% of my battery to this kind of arbitrage.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    23. Re: Full accounting of costs by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      so the lead acid family of batteries would function very well for home storage

      I suppose lead-acid car batteries would suffice if you didn't draw them down much each night... but what's the point if you can't use your full capacity without damaging 'em?? This calls for marine or deep cycle batteries that don't automatically become damaged when drained heavily.

      Marine and deep discarge batteries are definitely in the lead-acid family of batteries.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    24. Re: Full accounting of costs by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That's what a friend who lived off-grid used. Shed full of marine batteries. Cheap, durable, and easy to replace. About every 3 months he'd test all the batteries, replace any that were wearing out, close the door, and maintenance was done.

      Compared to a power wall, that was far cheaper, stored vastly more energy, and provided higher power draw. The only thing it didn't have was looks.

      Exactly. I'm not certain why some think that Marine or deep discharge batteries are not lead-acid batteries, but their main drawback is that they are so darn heavy. But they are inexpensive, and dead easy to recycle. Treat them well, don't let them get too hot, feed them to inverters, any you have a nice electrical system.

      Hoping that this gets popular enough to ditch the inverters as in low voltage devices instead of feeding them 120 volts and wasting energy stepping dow to something low.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you winter, no problem.

      I've cycled around Vancouver all winter long, and it's not fun. Despite the rain, I drew the line at actual snow on the ground, bicycles simply aren't safe in those conditions.

    26. Re:Full accounting of costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the success in graphene anodes turning 300 cycle batteries into 30,000 cycle batteries, I'm easily able to accept the idea that the powerwall,or its less expensive and less energy dense sodium sulfur batteries, will fill in nicely

    27. Re:Full accounting of costs by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      By this I assume you mean have the car operate as a sort of ride-hailing service for the general public?

      No, that is not what he fucking meant.
      Moron.

  19. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1/ there is something called a "battery at home", which is rather useful to top-up your electric car (rather than the other way). a few thousands $ and solved. Always connected (also when the sun shines), controllable.
    2/ all that converting from AC to DC and back, high-to-low and low-to-high voltages... quite some loss.

    And of course, what's missing is where our Country can put taxes on, because they won't have taxes on gas anymore.

    Hopefully all that de-centralized production and consumption of electricity may mean less losses in transport.

  20. This isn't what we were told. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cars recharge overnight at home. Then we drive the car 50 miles to work. We plug into the recharger in the parking lot (usually with a solar panel because of peak usage and pricing) so the car can make it back home. Then we drive the car 50 miles back home. Lather, rinse repeat.

    There wasn't supposed to be a "...and while you're at work and getting your car recharged, your car battery gets utilized as stored energy to power the grid during peak usage" because I was supposed to get my car battery trickle-charged while I was at work.

    Of course with electric cars, no more "road trip" vacations or driving the kids off to college because it can only go 100 to 200 miles on a charge and then it takes 8 hours to recharge.

    1. Re:This isn't what we were told. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "Of course with electric cars, no more "road trip" vacations or driving the kids off to college because it can only go 100 to 200 miles on a charge and then it takes 8 hours to recharge."

      Maybe not:

      https://www.engadget.com/2018/...

      And if it won't do "road trip", I'm not going to buy it, so someone needs to figure out road trip with or without a supercapacitor. 1st leg of my vacation last month was >800 miles.

    2. Re:This isn't what we were told. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rally2xs pointed out:

      "Of course with electric cars, no more "road trip" vacations or driving the kids off to college because it can only go 100 to 200 miles on a charge and then it takes 8 hours to recharge."

      Maybe not:

      https://www.engadget.com/2018/...

      The problem with that story is that we've heard about a godzillion such "potential breakthroughs" over the past 10 or so years - but not one working, commercially-available product based on them has come to market. And I'm pretty sure that, if one was anywhere near ready for real-world application testing there'd be a continuous drumbeat of breathless stories from all the usual sources heralding its imminent arrival.

      All I hear at the moment is crickets ...

      (Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

      --

      Check out my novel ...

    3. Re:This isn't what we were told. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there seems to be a battery breakthrough story every couple weeks. I bit really hard on the 10X boost over lithium that was described as "nanowire batteries" in I think Dec 2007 issue of Spectrum, but the scientists were scooped up by offers from I think it was a Saudi University where the thing was probably suppressed for what it would do to the Arab oil business.

    4. Re:This isn't what we were told. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> ...but the scientists were scooped up by offers from I think it was a Saudi University where the thing was probably suppressed for what it would do to the Arab oil business.

      HA! When I was growing up (1970s into the 1980s), the big conspiracy theory was "big oil" suppressing the miracle of the 50 MPG carburetor. Same conspiracy theory, different technology.

  21. Fly in the ointment by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    have millions of drivers become mini electricity traders, charging up when rates are cheap and pumping energy back into the grid during peak hours

    Transportation accounts for about 70% as much energy consumption as electricity. If you convert all those ICE cars into EVs, the electric rates won't be cheap during the night when they're charging. Overnight will become the new peak consumption hours, when electricity is most expensive.

    1. Re:Fly in the ointment by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if the infrastructure is currently underutilized at night, then this move to nighttime usage could be a good thing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Fly in the ointment by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      12.5 cents per KwH here in Virginia as far as I know. Charge any time I want to. Get out of California and other such states that allow pricing on a time of day basis and improve your life.

    3. Re:Fly in the ointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, what sufficient storage capacity would do is flatten the load curve. They have to build the transmission grid to handle the peak flow, even if it only occurs a couple times a year. The flatter the curve, the less the differential between peak and off-peak, and thus the less excess transmission capacity that is sitting there doing nothing at off-peak times.

    4. Re:Fly in the ointment by eth1 · · Score: 2

      have millions of drivers become mini electricity traders, charging up when rates are cheap and pumping energy back into the grid during peak hours

      Transportation accounts for about 70% as much energy consumption as electricity. If you convert all those ICE cars into EVs, the electric rates won't be cheap during the night when they're charging. Overnight will become the new peak consumption hours, when electricity is most expensive.

      No... If the system is properly designed, with everyone trying to buy low/sell high, and large amounts of storage in cars, there won't BE any peaks/slumps in demand. Not under normal operation, anyway. There's still the "a hurricane's coming, so everyone sets their cars to charge to full and not discharge" type scenarios to deal with. Even then, though, the power prices would spike to the point where a lot of people would probably still want to sell to make a buck.

  22. No it wont. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    I recognize that in terms of how things are priced today that this seems like a great idea. However, the capacity of batteries is going to greatly increase while the price of them is going to drop like a rock. Effectively, things will get to the point where people would ask, "wait, why would you even do that?" leaving off the implication that batteries are dirt cheap.

    Solar and battery are going to power most every home in the future and might even have power left over to charge your car because it's going to be extremely cost effective.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:No it wont. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gravis Zero enthused:

      Solar and battery are going to power most every home in the future and might even have power left over to charge your flying car because it's going to be extremely cost effective.

      FTFY ...

      (Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

      --

      Check out my novel ...

  23. Don't tell this to my employer. by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or from a "bring your own device" policy, it will rapidly switch to a "bring your own battery" policy to further lower infrastructure costs.

  24. STFU, Peasant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you may think that it is wonderful to live in your tiny hovel in a mild climate region, there are others of us that strive for a little more elbow room. There are also others that like 70 percent of the planet are not within such mild climactic zones and use more far lecky than your peasant-ass can afford.

    My modest home uses an average of 90kWh per day. That's an annual average. That means that some days it will use as much as 120kWh. I would imagine someone in a large home in Texas would use three or more times that. But, none of that really matters. Residential housing isn't the big consumer. In fact it barely even matters. Commercial usage is the killer. My small business uses over 3,000kWh per day and it is not a major consumer. I can't even imaging how much some of the big factories or shopping malls must use.

    Residential consumption is a red herring and car battery storage is a willful misinformation tactic from someone with an agenda for financial gain from car/battery sales.

    1. Re:STFU, Peasant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try living somewhere where it gets REALLY cold in the winter and you need to heat with electric(air source heat pump in my case). It's not uncommon in the winters for me to average around 100-150kWh a day, and this is with keeping the temps at 68F/20C during the day and dropping it down to 64F/18C overnight. The house is about 20 years old, so it's pretty modern in terms of insulation etc.

      If I had the option of natural gas service where I lived, I'd certainly go that route for heating, as that would be a lot cheaper.

    2. Re:STFU, Peasant! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      While you may think that it is wonderful to live in your tiny hovel in a mild climate region

      It's probably something like 6 kWh overnight for the whole three-story building with 200 square meters of residential area.

      My modest home uses an average of 90kWh per day. That's an annual average.

      I'll shed a tear for you. Meanwhile, maybe in the years to come, your people will learn to build properly?

      Commercial usage is the killer. My small business uses over 3,000kWh per day and it is not a major consumer. I can't even imaging how much some of the big factories or shopping malls must use.

      True, but surely that is outside of the scope of TFA. Unless you live IN the business, of course.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:STFU, Peasant! by swillden · · Score: 1

      The assumption here is that you'll have solar panels that generate enough power to cover a big chunk of your electricity needs, and that you're using a combination of the grid and your car battery to account for differences in supply and demand, since you'll only get max solar output for a few hours a day.

      In your specific case, have you looked into getting a big propane tank and periodic deliveries? That's the normal solution for northerly climes where piped natural gas isn't available. It would be a lot cheaper than electric heat (though possibly not as green, depending on how your electricity is generated).

      An even better option for you would be a ground loop. If you're out in the boonies you probably have enough land that you can go shallow and broad, which is cheaper. Then your heat pump can move ~50F subterranean temperatures into your house. Much shallower gradient than whatever that air temperature you're pumping from is. You'd still be using electricity, but it would be dramatically more efficient.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:STFU, Peasant! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Try living somewhere where it gets REALLY cold in the winter

      The things you describe affect only a very small percentage of Earth's population, though. This means that it may suck for you (I still think your insulation cold be improved, though) but for a massive majority of people, 100 kWh gets them through a week at least rather than through a day.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:STFU, Peasant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The assumption here is that you'll have solar panels that generate enough power to cover a big chunk of your electricity needs

      That's a big assumption. Especially when you've got less than 9 hours of sunlight a day in the winter and a low solar angle.

      In your specific case, have you looked into getting a big propane tank and periodic deliveries?

      Thought about it, but generally the prices of propane have gone up to the point it doesn't make that much sense to do it now. I'd still need to buy something that actually used propane as a fuel too, so I'm not sure how much I'd end up saving in the long run. Most of my power comes from hydroelectric at least.

      An even better option for you would be a ground loop. If you're out in the boonies you probably have enough land that you can go shallow and broad, which is cheaper.

      Oh absolutely it would make a lot of sense, but the installation costs are pretty steep too. Maybe if my heat pump dies, that's the direction I'll go. For my case at least, this would probably be a far better investment than solar panels/batteries.

  25. Battery wear by orzetto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (Disclaimer: EV owner, researcher in relevant field, and I was once asked to evaluate a research project on V2G in an European country)

    The idea is interesting, and may well have an impact in countries with a lot of non-controllable power (wind, sun, but to a degree nuclear and other baseloads too), if price oscillations are large enough. The article mentions a potential of USD 40 a month, which is just above a buck a day. Would you risk not having enough charge in your car to get home for such a pittance?

    More importantly, there is no mention of battery wear. Batteries are much more expensive than the energy they store through their lifetime. Teslas have actually a very limited lifetime of about 500 cycles (since the batteries are large, there is no need for more lifetime—it's actually smart to use short-lived, cheaper NCA batteries as Tesla does), which means that, if you assume USD 200 / kWh by 2030, each kWh will cost 40 cents only in battery depreciation: that's a lot more than what the energy costs, and will likely more than offset those 40 USD a month. (Yes, there are longer-lived batteries; they are also more expensive) (Yes, battery wear is not just a matter of cycling, it's also storing at high voltage, rate of charge/discharge at which temperature, and lots of other things)

    V2G is very interesting for grid companies as a solution to their energy storage problems, but they seem to intend to exploit the lack of consumer understanding of EV cost dynamics: the real cost of a kWh is the battery wear, not the actual energy. There is a reason why these companies are not buying the batteries directly.

    I believe V2G has more potential in "private grid" applications: e.g. if you have a cabin in the woods with no option of grid connection, you could drive to it with you EV and power it from your batteries while you are there (a home uses a lot less power than a car); or you could transfer some charge to a vehicle that ran out of it on the road (actually the Toyota Mirai has a similar feature, a ChaDeMo outlet).

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:Battery wear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the batteries degrade to the point where they are completely useless ? Or could they be recycled into a (less powerfull) powerwall ?

    2. Re:Battery wear by Rogue974 · · Score: 0

      I had almost the exact same thought. Battery cycles kill batteries. The more they cycle, the faster they die.

      So the power companies instead of investing in and the maintenance of batteries they need for the renewable grid, they want people driving electric cars to subsidize their storage needs.

      I own the car, I maintain the car, it is for my utilization, not the power companies unless they want to pay me for the service. As you pointed out, it is a small sum that you get. Unless it is enough to off set the increased wear and tear and the risk of not having the vehicle charged for my needs, then no thank you.

      You are a power company, pay the money to build your own batteries, store your energy and then maintain and replace the batteries when needed. Pass that cost along to the customer.

      You also mentioned longer life batteries and possibly other options. Let the power companies explore those options and build the best batteries to meet their needs. When you design something and then "adapt" it to a different purpose, quite often there can be unforeseen consequences that can range for rapid reduction in life of the equipment to hazardous operation issues. This might not apply, but it has to be considered. Just design a solution specifically for the grid and don't expect people with electric cars to subsidize the power company

    3. Re:Battery wear by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Teslas have actually a very limited lifetime of about 500 cycles

      Incorrect, Tesla use Panasonic cells rated for 3000 cycles.

      500 cycles at 250 miles per charge would only be 125,000 miles, which happens to also be the warranty on the packs. Lifetime being a bell curve approximately 50% of packs would qualify for warranty replacement if that was the case. But more over, lots of Tesla cars are up to 200k+, and Tesla tested up to 750k.

      Even the original Nissan Leaf has proven to be more durable than that, with taxi firms putting over 200k miles on the original pack without any problems. The newer 30 and 40kWh models might not last so long though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Battery wear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you risk not having enough charge in your car to get home for such a pittance?

      More importantly, there is no mention of battery wear. Batteries are much more expensive than the energy they store through their lifetime.

      I'm pretty sure an implementation of this would allow for you controlling what's the lowest you allow your battery to go while doing V2G. Even though my daily commutes are fairly small I wouldn't allow for such a thing to go below 90% (exactly for cycle impact on the lifetime you mention). Software permitting, I probably would have some sort of conditional like "don't go below 2% of what it was at the moment you started taking electricity out of my battery pack." As you mention, it's barely any money, so there's no point on wasting my battery for nothing. But the societal gains due to doing this in a large scale might be enough to offset a small disruption of everyone's daily commute. Think along the lines of "one less baseload powerplant per X citizens"...

    5. Re:Battery wear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are interesting comments. Thank you.

      A couple of comments:
      -An overall trend that I have seen is there is a lot of public fascination with batteries and energy storage (neat), but less so on mechanisms to shift consumption to coincide with renewable generation; e.g., through dynamic electric pricing.
      -Power companies may be excited because they tend to not pay the consumer fairly for their services. There is no way that they will willing give up a part of their business unless they can make even more money. E.g., my monopoly utility provider (AEP) might buy surplus solar energy at the fuel rate (about 2.2 cents/kWh), but do not seem to believe that I should be compensated for generation costs (this is a standard part of an electric bill and more than the fuel costs at about 4.7 cents/kWh; you can see AEPs subtle, but harmful, statement at: https://www.aep.com/environment/news/RooftopSolarAndNetMetering.aspx).
      -U.S. consumers need to better understand that almost all utility companies are state granted monopolies and need to be regulated as such. The good actions that they do tend to be a result of concessions to regulators. (And the energy companies then buy the politicians and regulators, e.g., Dominion Energy in Virginia: http://www.richmond.com/news/special-report/dominion/dominion-executives-bundle-donations-to-virginia-lawmakers-campaign-accounts/article_2dc5e500-ae9e-11e7-825f-cf7d0872e492.html )

    6. Re:Battery wear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are interesting comments. Thank you.

      A couple of comments:
      -An overall trend that I have seen is there is a lot of public fascination with batteries and energy storage (neat), but less so on mechanisms to shift consumption to coincide with renewable generation; e.g., through dynamic electric pricing.
      -Power companies may be excited because they tend to not pay the consumer fairly for their services. There is no way that they will willing give up a part of their business unless they can make even more money. E.g., my monopoly utility provider (AEP) might buy surplus solar energy at the fuel rate (about 2.2 cents/kWh), but do not seem to believe that I should be compensated for generation costs (this is a standard part of an electric bill and more than the fuel costs at about 4.7 cents/kWh).
      -U.S. consumers need to better understand that almost all utility companies are state granted monopolies and need to be regulated as such. The good actions that they do tend to be a result of concessions to regulators. (And the energy companies then buy the politicians and regulators, e.g., Dominion Energy in Virginia)

    7. Re:Battery wear by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      They do not degrade to uselessness. It's never happened. There are 13 year old RAV4s with nickel-metal hydride batteries that work just fine. Jay Leno's 100+ year old Baker Electric works perfectly with the original battery. Lithium batteries in Tesla Roadster autos are still working fine 10 years on, though they have lost a good 10-40% or so of capacity, which is due to overheating or overcharging. Tesla figured out, and now others are too, how to intelligently manage the charging to avoid forming dendrites in the cells. Better every year.

      And I believe Toyota and Nissan both recycle their car batteries into power brick installations for utilities and such, A bit degraded is still a lot of battery.

    8. Re:Battery wear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope they do not use cells rated for 3000 cycles, stop the bullshit.

      cell cycle life is dependant on a lot of factors, temperature, amps (charge and discharge), discharge/charge range, etc

      if you dont charge/discharge deeply and charge/discharge slowly you get more cycles before the cell capacity falls to 80% (which is what the standard 500 cycle is calculated from).

      But if you discharge/charge fast and deep, then you might only get 250.

      it's very variable.

    9. Re:Battery wear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a researcher in the field, I'm surprised you're not aware of the studies conducted by Nissan and Enel which demonstrated that vehicles participating in V2G activity were actually EXTENDING their battery life.

      https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/18/european-vehicle-grid-plan-pays-off-electric-car-owners-extends-battery-life/

    10. Re: Battery wear by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the link, the ScienceDirect paper liked in it was an interesting read. However, I became sceptical of scientific findings in newspapers early in my PhD for good reasons. In this specific case, the original authors Uddin & al. looked for a specific pattern that would reduce degradation. That's not the same pattern that would result in the most profit for the grid company, and for which they would pay 40 USD a month. In a nutshell, their V2G strategy reduced the SoC of vehicles that arrived at work with high SoC, reducing thereby degradation due to sustained high voltages. Now, as they also point out in more polite terms, an EV owner who charges their car to 100% every night when he needs 5% to get to work is an idiot, and will wear the battery rapidly. Their strategy takes care of these idiots by reducing the SoC of their vehicles and preserving battery performance though the day. The article does not claim that V2G in general reduces degradation, only that, for a minority of (stupid) users, it can be made that way. But real users are not necessarily stupid, and if you want a grid company to pay you for V2G you had better provide storage on their terms, not yours: that means storing at high SoC, rapid charge and discharge, and other wearing conditions as they see fit for their operation-not for your vehicle.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    11. Re:Battery wear by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Incorrect, Tesla use Panasonic cells rated for 3000 cycles.

      Not sure why a comment with unbacked claims got modded +5 Informative. Googling leads to no official claim for this 3000 cycle figure. Indeed, Panasonic's official datasheet for the 18650B used in Teslas indicates an end-of-life (defined at 20% capacity loss) after 300 cycles.

      Of course, that's because in Panasonic's test cycle the cell is deep-discharged down to 2.75 V, and obviously if you are careful with your EV's charging pattern you will have much better performance. 3000 is not impossible, but it's not the nominal rating, and Panasonic would be unwise to guarantee a performance that is highly dependent on good behaviour by the user. In any case, this is irrelevant since 500 cycles are plenty for most people, except possibly professional drivers.

      My point is, if you connect to a V2G system, the grid company will want to use the full capacity and maximum power that the vehicle is capable of delivering (that's what they pay for), so with that kind of cycling you can expect a lifetime closer to 300 than 3000.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    12. Re:Battery wear by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      https://www.teslarati.com/tesl...

      https://insideevs.com/200000-m...

      They don't use those 18650B cells, they use a different chemistry.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Battery wear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can you even fucking read.

      The only mention is that model3s use newer 2170 cells not 18650B.

      and the main change is the fucking size, nothing about chemistry..

      stop spreading fanboy bullshit.

      The amount of fucking idiots on a tech site is fucking unbelievable

  26. Zero Point Energy is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zero Point Energy is the answer until Mr.Fusion is here.

  27. Supercapacitors by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Supercapacitors in cars instead of or in addition to batteries could be the hot setup:

    https://www.engadget.com/2018/...

    The thing is, if your car is giving up its charge to the grid, and you suddenly want to go somewhere, that's not ideal. But if the car has a supercapcitor that can charge in 10 minutes, then it works much better. The power wall for storing charge could come into play by charging the car quickly, since drawing that kind of amperage through the grid wouldn't be possible - 200 amp service at 240 volts is only 48 KwH an hour, so with the best electric car mileage currently being around 4 miles per KwH, that's about 192 miles of electrical energy per hour available to charge the car's battery. Fine if you have an hour to kill before you leave, but if you want to go right now, you can't. But a battery charging a supercapacitor, especially several batteries in parallel, could charge in several minutes - just set it to charge 10 minutes or so before you leave, and it's done when you're ready.

    So this could be the storage that the grid really needs to go renewable.

    Problems? If there's a disaster on the way, such as a hurricane, everyone is going to want to be leaving at once. Most home batteries will be supplying current to charge cars, not supply the grid. If the weather is bad, which it ought to be with a hurricane on the way, the solar isn't helping, and if the wind is too fast for wind turbines, does the whole thing fail at the worst possible time? Maybe.

    1. Re:Supercapacitors by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Supercapacitors have 1/100 the energy density of modern batteries. They've got better power density. Charging the battery that fast might melt your cable, though: a 48kWh battery charging in 10 minutes draws 1,200 amps. That's enough to vaporize a 1cm-thick steel rod explosively (there would be an expanding fireball detonating in your face almost instantly).

    2. Re:Supercapacitors by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I prefer FES (Flywheel Energy Storage). Either place it in a reinforced structure, or bury just at or below the surface so that in the event of catastrophic failure, no one will get hurt. In addition, a FES unit might also be economical to purchase cheap energy at night, store, then bleed from it during the day.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Supercapacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why have a flywheel and not have a little mouse to run on it? I suspect the mouse on a flywheel surely has enough power to move a car. If not, then a team of a thousand mice!

    4. Re:Supercapacitors by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      could be the hot setup in a world without physics

    5. Re:Supercapacitors by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The quoted article says 180 watt-hrs/Kg for the supercapacitor, as opposed to 100 -120 Wh/Kg for lithium, so its not a capacity problem.

      As for melting wires, yeah, that's something else to solve. Use 1000 batteries and wire them in series temporarily during the charge, so you connect up to 50,000 volts with smaller amps? Have to be real careful with that, of course. Or maybe just use huge charging cables... probably need a hydraulic arm to life and connect them!

    6. Re:Supercapacitors by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The quoted article says 180 watt-hrs/Kg for the supercapacitor, as opposed to 100 -120 Wh/Kg for lithium

      That's the specific energy, not the energy density.

      Supercapacitors range around 0.05 MJ per liter of physical space, whereas lithium ion batteries range 0.9-2.63 MJ per liter, depending on chemistry. That means the 18kWh battery that takes up twice the volume of the rear seats in the Chevrolet Volt would be larger than the entire car if it were a supercapacitor, and weigh only about twice as much as the battery as-is.

      Yes, it would be about 40 times bigger. Think styrofoam versus iron.

      Use 1000 batteries and wire them in series temporarily during the charge, so you connect up to 50,000 volts with smaller amps?

      You'll need an enormous transformer for that, which will get hot. It will be bigger than your car. You'll still have to feed it from mains, which means it has to draw power through your service line, meter, and service panel at 240V. You're not getting a 50,000V feed to your house off the pole.

      If you short a 50,000V transformer on your side (which shouldn't even exist), you'll probably detonate and set fire to everything on your block. The power will pulse back through the mains line, meet impedance at the transformer on your pole, and go down to all your neighbors's houses fed by the same transformer. A power fault, thus, will cause several million dollars's worth of damage and likely loss of life.

    7. Re:Supercapacitors by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The energy density of the supposed "breakthrough" supercapcitor isn't stated, so I'm going to assume a team that is working on it for automotive use are not so boneheaded as to purse something for automotive use that is so large as to make it prohibitive for automotive use.

      As for charging at 50Kv, I wasn't clear. I meant that the vehicle supercapacitors AND powerwall batteries would BOTH be connected in series temporarily to bring the voltage up to 50Kv, and then the batteries should have no problem flowing enough amperage to charge the vehicle supercapacitor in a short time. The cables would have to be insulated up the wazoo for safety, but amperage - 500 miles at 4 miles per KwH would be 125 KwH or a need to put 750 Kw down the wire for 10 minutes. At 50 Kv, that would be 15 amps. Sounds doable.

    8. Re:Supercapacitors by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The energy density of the supposed "breakthrough" supercapcitor isn't stated, so I'm going to assume a team that is working on it for automotive use are not so boneheaded as to purse something for automotive use that is so large as to make it prohibitive for automotive use.

      You must be new around here. You might be interested in learning why there are 53 papers about how skipping breakfast makes you fat even though it turns out to not be true.

      and then the batteries should have no problem flowing enough amperage to charge the vehicle supercapacitor in a short time

      Li+ will detonate. Besides that the battery chemistry has about 1/100 of the power density of a supercapacitor, its internal resistance will result in generating enough heat to boil and then ignite the media. You could build a cooling system to vent the heat; it would ignite anything flammable at the discharge point--including metal (yes, metal can catch fire, with magnesium being the most notable example, although aluminum ignites at or above 2100K). I'm not sure you can get thermal efficiency enough to sink the heat properly, transport it in a liquid or phase-change medium, and vent it; you would likely need wet sink into a ground water source, which would boil.

      At 50 Kv, that would be 15 amps. Sounds doable.

      Maybe. We're still ignoring one problem: you don't select amperage.

      You can set voltage by a voltage differential. You get current by voltage and resistance.

      In other words: if you put 50,000 volts onto a copper wire, you will definitely not transfer at 15 amps. You're going to vaporize that wire.

      To get more out, you need to run at a higher resistance. To get 15 amps at 50,000 volts, you're looking at 3,333 ohms. That's P=RI^2 as well. This of course makes sense: the whole system has to have that kind of resistance (the wire going down doesn't), and you're going to vent 750,000W in heat to the atmosphere.

      Assuming the resistance at the supercapacitor is about 0, you're going to vent all of that in your battery (and it explodes). Problem: the lithium ion battery has 0.320 ohms of resistance, so you need to put some kind of highly-resistive load down at the supercapacitor or else you're going to send like 152,000 amps down that wire. If you put the highly-resistive load down there, it'll get damned hot.

      Which part do you want to become a 750kW space heater?

    9. Re:Supercapacitors by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Interesting problems.

      We might not be able to apply 50 Kv from the start, eh? Either the source batteries blow up, or the supercapacitor blows up. (There has to be a way to do this, but it doesn't readily come to mind.)

    10. Re:Supercapacitors by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There isn't, really. Current flow is a matter of voltage and resistance; and energy doesn't magically move. A bunch of electricity isn't "energy"; it's the potential difference that creates flow, kind of like putting a tonne of water up five km high.

      In other words: all movement of electricity uses energy. There's a reason 750kW of movement generates 750kW of heat: 100% of all electrical energy consumed is released in the process of consumption, generally as heat. You can keep wires cool by reducing the current, but only by increasing resistance at some point and increasing voltage between the two ends of your power source: 100V 100A is 10,000W, and the wire gets hotter than if you use 1,000V 10A instead. You're still going to release 10kW of power somewhere; and 2,000V 10A is going to release 20kW of power.

      I'm not an EE; I grew up doing this stuff as a hobby due to having an EE in the house. It's a little slow coming. Still, that's how electricity works. Point is you can't magically turn up voltage and turn down current: Current is Voltage divided by Resistance.

    11. Re:Supercapacitors by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Yep, the math all works that way. But still, there has to be a way to charge capacitors that measure their capacity in multiple farads.

      Breaking the supercapacitor up into many small ones, and charging them in succession so that you're charging a 0.1 farad capacitor at 50Kv would cause it to "fill" quickly, so the spike in current flow would be short, then move on to the next one, etc. Charge in 10 minutes? Dunno. Thomas Edison would probably make short work of this problem. I toured several of his labs and muesums last year, and the man was amazing.

    12. Re:Supercapacitors by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      At the molecular level, you're already heating individual atoms. Your entire bank is going to heat up at 750kW.

      What you describe is like saying you should be able to fly by pulling your right leg up, then your left leg, then quickly jerking to pull your right leg up before you fall, and repeat.

    13. Re:Supercapacitors by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      No, I think it's more like devising a method of limiting things to 15 amps. There's some calculation to do but that I sense some stuff doesn't make sense at this level. Can 15 amps really fill up a large supercapacitor. Amps is the flow of electrons. A capacitor is a storage vessel for charge, which is a certain number of electrons. If a much lower voltage will generate the 15 amps, then we only need that voltage.

      The challenge is to limit the current by limiting the voltage differential between the source, which is the powerwall batteries, and the supercapacitor. This would then be accomplished by limiting the DIFFERENCE in the voltages of the batteries and the SC. If the batteries have 0.3 ohms, then the voltage difference would need to be 5 volts to yield 15 amps of flow.

      Increasing the battery voltages continuously, as the voltage steadily increases across the SC, and keeping the difference at 5 volts, would limit the heat in the batteries to I squared R, or 25 X 0.3 = 7.5 watts. How to make variable voltage battery?

      Individual lithium cells are 3.7 volts if I remember right. 2 of those would be 7.4, so 22.6 amps would result across 0.3 ohms internal resistance, and simply adding cells, switching them in as the capacitor voltage rises might be the way.

      There has to be a way!

    14. Re:Supercapacitors by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I think it's more like devising a method of limiting things to 15 amps

      You do that by decreasing voltage or increasing resistance--and with resistance, power dissipation (heat). An incandescent light bulb functions as a current limiter: the higher the voltage, the hotter the tungsten wire gets, increasing resistance and decreasing current flow, and thus radiating more heat.

      This would then be accomplished by limiting the DIFFERENCE in the voltages of the batteries and the SC

      Yeah, that's just voltage.

      Increasing the battery voltages continuously, as the voltage steadily increases across the SC, and keeping the difference at 5 volts

      That's a five-volt power source.

      Let's say you have a voltage source which, if connected to ground, is 5 volts. You have another power source which, if connected to ground, is 5,000 volts. Cool, right?

      Now let's say you connect your 5V power source across a wire. The voltage potential is 5V, and you get 5V across the wire.

      Now, if you connect your 5,000V power source via a wire to a power sink that's 4,995V when measured against ground, what you have is ... a 5V power source.

      Both of these are equivalent: the same amount of voltage and current are applied against that wire in either case.

      In other words: 5 volts means the difference in voltage between source and sink is 5 volts. That source and sink can be a trillion volts and a trillion minus five volts; that's five volts. That's the same five volts as the five volts powering the SSD inside your computer.

    15. Re:Supercapacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, give it a rest. You have no idea what you are talking about.

      Firstly, the current is limited by the voltage *difference* and the resistance. Those supercapacitors also have voltage on them. You're not shorting 50KV into pure resistance, that would be stupid, and would waste your battery charge while getting nothing in return.

      Second, you'd charge with some sort of switching power controller.

      Imagine: Battery in series with *inductor*, and that feeds the supercapacitors. Inductors have the property that it takes time for the current through them to build up. You hook it up and it starts at *zero* current. Yes, even with 50KV across them. The current ramps up linearly from there - depending on the voltage and the size of the inductor it could be slower or faster but the point is it takes a typically short but non-zero amount to time to reach a set threshold, say, 15 amps. When it reaches it, you then *disconnect* the inductor from the battery and short that end to ground. (You'd use a diode to do this quickly.) The magnetic field in the inductor *keeps the current going* even though it isn't connected to the battery at that moment. The current decays (all the while charging the supercap), and when it gets to zero, you repeat the process. Power gets transferred, with relatively little resistance and losses.

      This is the essence of a switching power supply. This is also how you can transfer charge from one battery to another battery/supercap.

      And, if it is designed properly, nothing will melt or explode in the process.

      Sure, there are many technical challenges to overcome. Switching 50KV isn't easy, for one. Something like 5KV at 150A would probably be more feasible. And/or taking 20 or 30 minutes to charge instead of 10. But please stop spreading your +2-rated bull, when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

    16. Re:Supercapacitors by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Can you coil the wire in a way that it generates a self-opposing magnetic field that limits the amps? I remember when I was young, my uncle was showing me how to make a light bulb dimmer by either using a resistor or a coil of wire, but the coil didn't generate heat like the resistor did and the light lasted quite a bit longer on the small capacitor. One issue was when the power finally ended, the magnetic field collapsed and caused a burst of very bright light, indicating a voltage spike.

    17. Re:Supercapacitors by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Can you coil the wire in a way that it generates a self-opposing magnetic field that limits the amps?

      Yes, that's an inductor. It prevents AC from passing while allowing DC to pass. Basically, inductors resist change in current by storing energy in a magnetic field, which collapses as the current shrinks and thus induces a higher voltage, raising the current (holding it steady). The bright flash of light you saw was from the voltage increasing as the magnetic field finally collapsed entirely, whereby the voltage of the capacitor could no longer produce enough current flow to generate a magnetic field in the inductor, and so the inductor dumped all remaining power at once.

      Basically, an inductor allows you to lower the voltage of the circuit without creating as much heat, in some cases. The inductor will actually dissipate energy as heat. It functions as a short circuit when passing DC. If you connect an inductor to a capacitor, the current starts to oscillate--it creates AC from DC.

  28. Battery development by sjbe · · Score: 1

    We're still far away from batteries reaching their peak performance.

    Probably true though I think we're pretty close to the limit for Li-Ion batteries. The question is how soon can the next battery technology get to market.

    We develop more powerful batteries (ok, dear nitpickers, accumulators) that can store more power per kilogram of battery at a rather fast pace,

    Define "fast pace". Energy density of batteries has been increasing at something like 5-8% per year. Nice but that means it takes 10-15 years to double. Not exactly Moore's law though with a long term perspective I suppose that's pretty decent progress. I don't know that I'd call it fast paced but it's good enough to be optimistic about the future of batteries for powering homes and transportation.

    Let's first of all finish inventing the storage before we ponder spending the energy.

    Classic engineer thinking of trying to get everything perfect before first use. I think we are all guilty of that now and then. While I respect the intent that isn't really practical in the real world. Don't make perfect the enemy of good. One needs to ponder use cases along side development pathways.

  29. in a word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no

  30. Battery powered EVs are the future by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Right now, energy driven cars seem to be the future, but we don't even know what kind of energy storage is the best.

    Best is what works and has the best combination of economic utility and environmental friendliness. It seems pretty clear that battery powered EVs are the most credible option moving forward. Lots of advantages not the least of which is that the fuel source is abstracted from the vehicle and that there is existing infrastructure for refueling. You can power a battery powered EV with gasoline or coal or nuclear or wind or solar or anything else you can make into electricity. The value of that abstraction of power sources almost cannot be overstated. Plus the fact that you don't have to build the entire fueling infrastructure from scratch is equally huge in value. Even better you can have hybrids which allow use of both electric and petrol fueling infrastructures.

    Other potential options like hydrogen fuel cells have too many obstacles to really be likely to make headway in the market. It would take a miraculous technology breakthrough for anything other than battery powered EVs/hybrids to really have any chance at success.

    When it comes to energy density, the ICE and petrol are still superior to other forms on a pure power-per-kg level.

    Not once you include the weight of the engine and power train and consider efficiency. You're comparing apples to oranges. If it were that simple electric vehicles like the Tesla would lose every drag race they entered. You have to consider the weight of all components involved in turning that fuel source into power and how efficiently it does that task. On that measure ICE doesn't look nearly so pretty.

    We should first of all figure out how to replace this, and what to replace that with, before we start planning a whole house around it only to discover that eventually we'll start over from scratch.

    No. Absolutely not. The only way to figure out what works is to try things in the market. It's going to be a little messy but that's not a bad thing. The good thing about battery powered EVs is that it doesn't actually matter what type of battery is in the vehicle. You can upgrade those as technology permits because it doesn't require any adjustments to the refueling infrastructure. If we get a battery tomorrow with double the energy density the only effect is that cars can go farther. Same with batteries to power a house.

    1. Re: Battery powered EVs are the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is extremely stupid. EVs are not viable in general. EVs are not viable in high density residential areas where you have residential condo towers and open outside parking. You can only charge EV in a house, which is itself an unsustainable way of living and only US can create the presence of affording it. Hence the electric cars with batteries are also unsustainable. Now if you build a contact network (much like a bumper car attraction) over city roads and some intercity roads then it becomes viable as at no point you deal with batteries and the pesky charging for X minutes to hours

    2. Re: Battery powered EVs are the future by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      all electrical street lighting has the capability to double up as a charge point. charge points can also be installed on sidewalks, car parks etc and once these are all over the place, high density areas won't be such a problem as a lot of high density area dwellers don't always have cars or need to have cars because of the advent of car loan outfits like zipcar

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  31. Power versus weight versus space by sjbe · · Score: 1

    There is only one way to power your cellphone, with a rechargeable battery. You certainly won't put any kind of fuel cell into it, you won't power it with gas or an ICE.

    Actually you might power your cell phone with gas, just not directly. The gas is turned into electricity at the power station instead of in the device. That is the advantage of batteries. You can use the most practical fuel source available. It becomes like using money instead of bartering. The fuel source gets abstracted from the device.

    A house or even car is kinda different in that aspect.

    A car is no different than a cell phone regarding power versus weight. It's bigger but there still is a power vs weight vs space budget to deal with. Any mobile device regardless of size does not escape this reality.

    Homes don't have to care so much about weight obviously so that's a bit different. There still can be a space budget but since the device is static you don't have to worry about weight so much.

    1. Re:Power versus weight versus space by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Do you really care how much the "power plant" of your home weighs? I mean, beyond the capabilities of the foundation you put it on, of course.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Great Solution / Battery Wear by foxalopex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A lot of pure EVs store significantly more power than the average home uses in a day so there's a good chance it can be used to store renewable energy. Even if people can't get renewable power, they're valuable for levelling power use. Part of what keeps electricity costs high is that our power use swings wildly during the day so power systems need to be designed to generate more power than will ever be used.

    Also most EV's use the much more reliable LIthium-Iron-Phosphate class batteries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery) which wear out at a much slower rate than most lithiums and rarely if ever catch on fire. Tesla I believe doesn't use these more reliable batteries but the trade-off is the ability to pack more power in a smaller space / weight which is why they have some of the smallest batteries for their incredible capacity on the market.

    1. Re:Great Solution / Battery Wear by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      LiFePo batteries are the usual choice for electrical car conversions. I wish we could use SCiBs, but those aren't really available for general use,

  33. Already done by Stealthey · · Score: 1

    For what it is worth...I was in India a while back in summer. Almost every household there had this thing called Inverter hooked up right at the mains. Basically a step up/down transformer hooked up to a truck battery (car battery wasn't considered powerful enough). With daily power cuts, the inverter kicks in to keep basic light and essential services (Fridge, freezer etc.) running.
    There are variety of reasons why people there are doing this but as a concept it is already being done, when about half the city has a power cut, yet most of them are running on battery power. I must add, it is was at the time/place considered illegal to have these devices cause they put extra load on the grid when they are on charge.

    --
    I am at loss with words...
  34. Go even further by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    Get solar panels with a battery buffer, rely on the grid as little as possible. Solar panels not enough for your "needs"? Reduce your consumption, switch to power-saving alternatives. It's good for everyone.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  35. Doesn't make sense by lfp98 · · Score: 1

    Even as battery prices have fallen, it still costs much more to store and recover a kilowatt-hour of power from a battery, than to produce it in the first place. The battery is still by far the most expensive component of an EV, and (since there are so few moving parts) the first to wear out. To make it cost-effective for EV owners to wear out their batteries by renting them for storage, they would have to be paid triple or quadruple standard power rates, at least. But if EV sales really do take off as predicted, a more likely source of power storage will be a surplus of partially degraded used EV batteries, with too low capacity for on-road use but still perfectly adequate for stationary storage, where the energy/weight ratio is less critical.

    1. Re:Doesn't make sense by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Isn't that Tesla's plan for powerwalls?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  36. Learn To Code, Be Homeless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're foolish enough to believe the lies that drip from the mouths of the tech billionaires, you should learn to code. Learn to code, then learn there aren't any coding jobs anywhere. The tech industry doesn't hire coders. Your home will be powered by car batteries because you'll be living in your car, eating garbage, and giving blowjobs on street corners, all because you were dumb enough to learn to code.

  37. Really? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 0

    Your future might also be powered by Unicorn Farts! I doubt it though.

  38. Make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The batteries in EV could be used to shift demand to later in the evening and to supply power during the day. This would also work with home batteries. Controlling the demand in the homes and businesses by turning off fridge, air conditioners and electric heat for small period of time could be used to reduce peak demand.

  39. "Honey, can you turn off the dishwasher, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm trying to start the car!"

  40. What's going on here? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Today, fewer than one percent of the world's vehicles are electric, but by 2040 more than half of all new cars will run on the same juice as televisions, computers and hair dryers, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Once cars and everything else are fed from the same source, they can share the same plumbing.

    So they're pumping electrically-charged juice through the plumbing now? Why are they not using the same pipes as the internet?!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  41. Already thinking about this as a DIY project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My electric company offers a plan where overnight, for a period of 8 hours, they do not charge me for electricity. It is free during those hours.

    I've been looking into doing a grid-tie battery system that charges at night during those 8 hours and stores enough electricity for my entire house to run off of for the other 16 hours of the day (and then some). It would reduce my electric cost to zero, allow me to maintain power through power failures (I'd obviously tie in a generator for when the grid is down overnight.) Solar would be an easy addition later on to completely cut my grid-tie.

    I understand the cost for enough batteries would be a high initial investment and that batteries do not last forever, but I thought it would be an interesting way to get free electricity. I don't believe I'd end up saving a lot - in fact I don't expect the electric savings to really counter the initial cost of the system.

  42. Employee wear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This idea is like telecommuting in that costs for someone else (business/utility) are fostered onto the citizen, and relies on their fiscal ignorance to work properly.

  43. Cost versus performance by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Regardless, I'm not keen on the idea, and since in home use, weight is not a factor, so the lead acid family of batteries would function very well for home storage

    The only big advantage of lead acid batteries over Li-Ion in most use cases is their price tag which is quite a lot lower than Li-Ion. But lead acid batteries are worse on energy density, can require more maintenance, usually have fewer fewer cycles, are more temperature sensitive, worse capacity vs discharge rate, are less environmentally friendly, etc. There are plenty of use cases where lead acid is a fine choice but Li-Ion is the clear performance winner in most use cases. Provided of course the cost meets your budget.

    1. Re: Cost versus performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Used correctly, lead acid batteries have far longer lifetimes, and can do far more cycles than lithium ion.

  44. Re:Battery wear - then there are the facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Battery wear problems have for the most part have been solved by Tesla and presumably other EV makers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb_i4ihsJ1w&feature=youtu.be

    https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110149_tesla-model-s-battery-life-what-the-data-show-so-far

  45. it's called off grid by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    My current home has been powered by batteries for ten years

    1. Re:it's called off grid by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Well, presumably, the batteries don't charge themselves. So the thing powering the battery is powering your house. The battery is just storage so you get favorable rates.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:it's called off grid by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      The energy comes from the sun, but like most systems, everything in the house run off the inverter connected to a battery bank.

  46. yeah, that's good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "hey, are you sick of your electric car battery lasting you years instead of just months? hook your car into the grid so we can charge and discharge is all night while you sleep!"

    this is stupid from top to bottom.

  47. Physical energy transfer by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You could "fill up" your car in one location, drive home, and pump that power in to your local grid. If the local prices were high enough it could be affordable. You could get some sort of "energy truckers", hauling batteries across territory from grid to grid.

    That would make things interesting, though I can't imagine it would be terribly efficient. It would encourage companies and governments not to build out proper electrical grids.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  48. Re:Don't tell this to my employer. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Hell, whole towns could do this. Why bother setting up energy distribution if you can just make people drive it in.

    Why not expand this to water? Make people haul it in with no support from the government. Works for Flint, right?

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  49. " -- and it's a big if -- " by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    " -- and it's a big if -- "

    Ah, Bloomberg "news", throwing shade on the idea that many cars could ever be electric. Mad, mad! I tell you! Gods and Monsters!
    Of course the idea will work. It can't not work. There ain't no "if" involved. Electric cars will lower our power bills, aid grid overload, and walk the dogs while powerwashing the sidewalks. Blackouts will lose their terror all over the world. The upsides of electric cars are now obvious and I can't wait for a VW Beetle cheapie version for the Rest of Us.

  50. Sorry boss... by gettin2old · · Score: 1

    I can't come into work today. It was a hot night and the AC was on constantly. My car batteries are dead.

  51. Say it isn't so. by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    This is NOT what power companies want. Your local power company, who you send your bill to, probably has zero say in the actual generation of power. They buy power from the grid (think of the guys in NY mining bitcoin) and the quantity of watts they purchase has been agreed upon far in advance. Otherwise how would the large plants know how to schedule for demand? And vice versa; when home users decide willy-nilly to "sell back" and there is too much power available, what happens then? You don't just spin down your house sized steam turbines when home users with a car or batteries or solar start pushing back. Home users do not get the same treatment as a large industrial users either. That means your home power is never cheaper at 2:00AM like it might be for a big Aluminum smelter. This whole premise is crap.

  52. W+S+B is fairly common by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Energy shaping doesn't only need pumped water up an incline (hydro) for power generation, it can also use batteries, or even biofuel or split water into H2 and O2.

    When you combine the jagged shapes of the wind potential in many regions with the solar potential in many regions and compare it to actual demand, you find it smooths into a nice curve that closely matches actual demand, and you can start using a combination of batteries and intelligent power systems that only perform tasks during high power availability.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  53. Not New, Just New Hype by eepok · · Score: 1

    V2G (Vehicle-to-Grid) is not new. It's been hyped for years and will continue to be hyped because it helps (1) sell EVs and (2) rooftop solar. The problem is that the communication standard (ISO 15118) just to get vehicles to communicate with EV supply equipment isn't even adopted by the majority of big EV charger companies. It's adopted in "roadmap", but cars cannot yet speak to the grid. Moreover, the entire goal of V2G is being oversold to employers who are being told, "Hey, if there's a power issue, you can just tap all the EVs your employees have plugged in," to which all the employees will eventually respond, "Like Hell you will. I need that juice to drive home!"

    Lastly, let's just do what we all know we should do: spend excess energy on distilling water and then splitting it into oxygen and hydrogen (hydrolyzer). Store that hydrogen as a battery (fuel cell) or sell off the excess. No need to mind rare earth metals and deal with their eventual disposal. Just stay clean in the process.

  54. My head hurts after reading TFS by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    What idiot mixes plumbing with electricity?

  55. Not only rate-riding, actually generating power by elcor · · Score: 1

    Through kinetic recycling, hydrogen engines and other techs that we're not privy to. The car becomes the power plant.

  56. Potential Problem by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    Sure hope it's not like my car and always starts on cold mornings. Then too, be just my luck someone would leave the headlights on all night and drain the battery.

  57. never underestimate a station wagon full... by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    In Smokey and the bandit 4. Trucks full of molten salt will bring bootleg energy into Ca and sell it on the black market.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  58. Not very efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd be lucky to get 80% efficiency in the energy conversions from grid to charge the battery and likewise another 80% efficiency in the energy conversions from the battery back to the grid. That makes the overall storage efficiency 64%.

    You'd be better off using systems like liquid air storage (70%), molten salt thermal storage (72-80%), pumped storage hydro-electric (70-85%), or superconducting magnetic energy storage (>95%).

  59. Your future home might b powered by car batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but it will be powered by DC for sure.

    Given some facts, like the ones below, and others, DC current to residential and business users worldwide is inevitable.

    a. When Electric Vehicles (EVs) become ubiquitous, DC to charge their batteries will become a significant component of the load requirement for a typical household as well as many places of employment. The huge data-centers with millions of servers will especially benefit because the power-supply in each server can be greatly simplified while heat output is greatly reduced.

    b. Once LEDs become the dominant source of lighting, eliminating the costly and heavy parts that make a DC product suitable for AC, consumers and businesses, profit and non-profit alike, will save billions of $$ each year.

    c. Because of advancements in electronic switching, like SiC and GaN, the savings from Switched Reluctance Motors, which run on DC, will become compelling for each and every motor that is used in common households as well as businesses and many industrial applications

    d. Because of the ability of the output from Switched Reluctance generators in generating stations and wind-turbine applications, to be added to the grid in phases, almost immediately after start-up, and because electronic switches can "transform" each phase to the desired output voltage and then accrue the phases, Switched Reluctance generators driven by wind, natural gas and steam from Thorium (see Norway Thorium paper mill)reactors will become compelling. I have drawings and an animation of a 2.5 kW wind-turbine generator that you are welcome to, under the Creative Commons license, to further this issues.

    e. With electronic rectifiers, we already have the technology to implement DC one home or one commercial building at a time. While it may take fifty years to make the total world-wide switch to DC, the key is putting our accumulated world-wide brainpower together to establish uniform worldwide electrification with worldwide identical 220 Volt components as well as 380-440 voltages for applications that are typically 3-phase now.

    The economic benefits resulting from applying these things will be phenomenal but only if the manufacturing segment of our economy steps up to the challenge as referenced in an article in Appliance magazine. https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/buildings-and-grid-101-opportunities-and-challenges-hvac-water-heating-and (Nidec acquired the Switched Reluctance business from Emerson. Ironically, Ford seems to have owned that business at one time.)

    Henry Keultjes
    Microdyne Company
    Mansfield Ohio USA
    Direct 419-525-1111

  60. It is already, kinda, possible by stikves · · Score: 1

    There are people who have already done this. For example: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/vi...

    The 12V bus on the vehicle provides ample power to run small electronics, and even some larger ones. Depending on the model, it is possible to get 100A - 200A current thru an inverter, which will give up 20A over 120V, allowing 2kW continuous operation.

    Of course there are some caveats. First the battery is not designed for this kind of load, and it will decrease its total lifespan. Also you need to make sure the parts used are high quality, and able to handle the currents mentioned. (i.e.: very thick cabling, with actual copper in them, instead of aluminum mixes). Also you'd want to watch over the contraption, and of course have circuit breakers in case something goes wrong. Everything needs to be connected directly to the internal terminals, and the car should be in "idle" mode (i.e.: main battery is enabled, not just the 12V lead acid one).

    But it will allow you to run your fridge and some lights when the power goes out, even for very extended periods (1-2 days is possible). You can also use this when camping.

  61. What problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solar power charging power wall/s. Power walk charging car overnight. Problem solved.

  62. Number of cycles by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Used correctly, lead acid batteries have far longer lifetimes, and can do far more cycles than lithium ion.

    No they do not. Quite the opposite actually. It's not even close.

  63. EVs to power home? Not ideal by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The average USA house hold only uses 30KWH per day. Most of the marketed electric cars could completely run a house for 2-3 days

    While true as a general proposition (one has to be careful talking about averages), it's not clear that using your EV to power your house is a good idea as a routine matter. A lot of the residual value of the car will reside in the number of charge cycles the battery pack experiences. I could see doing that from time to time to help with emergencies or to smooth usage during the occasional peak time. But I think it would be a bad idea to routinely use your EV battery to power your home. It's not really designed for that purpose even if it might work acceptably well. I think something like Tesla's power wall makes a lot more sense for that purpose AND it does not require your car to be present in the home.

    Most of the warranties are for a full battery cycle every day for 10 years, and even then the battery will still be around 80% capacity.

    I can almost guarantee you those warranties do not cover powering your house. I'd be surprised in fact if they didn't specifically exclude it. That said, Elon is crazy enough to possibly do it anyway.

    The cost to produce a li-ion battery has gone down 25% between 2016 and 2017. They're getting cheap.

    They are getting cheapER. They aren't cheap. Not yet anyway. Good cause for optimism however.

  64. Marine batteries are not the answer by sjbe · · Score: 1

    That's what a friend who lived off-grid used. Shed full of marine batteries. Cheap, durable, and easy to replace.

    I'm sure it worked just fine and was reasonably economical at the time. But times are changing and so is battery technology.

    About every 3 months he'd test all the batteries, replace any that were wearing out, close the door, and maintenance was done.

    Which is clear evidence that they are not suitable for use by the General Public. I cannot imagine most people checking a shed of batteries on a routine basis even if they wanted to. They want something they can install and more or less forget about and which self monitors. Your friend is obviously a diligent person and technically inclined but what he did would be utterly incomprehensible to your canonical technologically impaired grandparent.

    Compared to a power wall, that was far cheaper, stored vastly more energy, and provided higher power draw. The only thing it didn't have was looks.

    Cheaper I would believe. "Stored vastly more energy"? Maybe per dollar but that is entirely a function of how many batteries you have. They definitely do NOT store more energy per battery than Li-Ion. And of course he would have to replace the lead acid batteries more frequently. Your comment about power draw is equally nonsensical. Li-Ion is demonstrably better for most high draw applications.

    There is nothing about marine lead acid batteries that provide more energy storage or greater power draw. I have no idea where you drew those conclusions but that isn't what the evidence shows. Lead acid batteries (marine or otherwise) are substantially less efficient, have fewer charge cycles, are much bulkier and heavier per unit of power, etc. The ONLY big advantage that lead acid batteries have is price. That's an important advantage but it's one that will go away in the near future.

    1. Re:Marine batteries are not the answer by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The ONLY big advantage that lead acid batteries have is price. That's an important advantage but it's one that will go away in the near future.

      And that was what I was basing my comment on, but failed to clearly state.

      And as long as that's true, they're still a better investment.

      They want something they can install and more or less forget about and which self monitors.

      Then they're not ready to live off the grid. At the current point in time, that's the technology, unless you're willing to invest an order of magnitude more money into your self-sufficiency. You seem to think that being energy-independent is a carefree, easy way to life. It's not. Well, not unless you have piles of money to throw at doing that.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  65. Cheap and available by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I'm not certain why some think that Marine or deep discharge batteries are not lead-acid batteries, but their main drawback is that they are so darn heavy. But they are inexpensive, and dead easy to recycle.

    Their weight is among their smaller disadvantages though for mobile applications that is a killer problem. Compared to Li-Ion they have fewer charge cycles, worse charging and draw characteristics, more temperature sensitivity, are less efficient, have worse power and energy density, etc. Lithium batteries can be recycled just fine too. From a performance standpoint Li-Ion wins in most use cases if you ignore price. There are some corner cases where lead acid comes out on top but most of the time it's really no contest.

    Lead acid batteries (marine or otherwise) have two primary advantages. They are cheap and they are readily available. And both of those advantages are rapidly disappearing because the price of Li-Ion is falling fast and as they capture market share the cost of lead acid will at some point start to rise or at least bottom out. I would expect cost parity within the next 10-15 years at which point the only reason to use lead acid batteries is for certain corner cases where Li-Ion might be problematic.

    1. Re:Cheap and available by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Their weight is among their smaller disadvantages though for mobile applications that is a killer problem. Compared to Li-Ion they have fewer charge cycles, worse charging and draw characteristics, more temperature sensitivity, are less efficient, have worse power and energy density, etc.

      The first thing we need to do is deal with the application. I'm talking about stationary setups.

      Next up is simplicity. Charging Lead-acid batteries is pretty simple. Charging a bank of Lithium Ion batteries requires a balance charger. Now Joe Shmo homesteader can easily homebrew a lead-acid based powering system for his house. Li-Po? That'll be a different story, unless he's already a design engineer. Balance chargers are pretty much maandatory, unless abusing the li-Pos is okay with the owner. Those lithium batteries are a lot more fragile than people think - ask Samsung. Lead-Acid batteries can be coaxed into exploding, but it takes a pretty good effort.

      But that's as far as I'm willing to be drawn into this argument, because it isn't my argument. Yeah - Lithium batteries are "better" than Lead Acid for many applications. I can do the chemistry analysis as well as you.

      Fact is, there are a lot of functioning Lead-acid storage systems out there, and they work just fine. Are they taking up more space? Yup.Heavier? Yup Are they easier to service? That's a matter of definition, because the PowerWall is almost certainly just a "Yup, it's dead, buy a new one", while Lead Acid involves using a meter and hydrometer.

      Then there is availability. Of course, if one of Joe's batteries goes bad, he can drive to the local garage and pick up a new one. I have to go to the corner gas hon - I'll be back in a half hour to restore power. He'll have to stay in the dark for a while with the Li-Po especially since the PowerWall is still in the reserve one now stage.

      But I'm not arguing specifications, merely that the Lead-acid systems work, and are simple enough for the owners to service the system. "Best" is a subjective term. At my home, I'd probably use a PowerWall or something akin to that. If I was living 10 miles outside of Roundup, Montana, I'd be using a Lead-acid system.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  66. Needlessly large mechanicals by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Do you really care how much the "power plant" of your home weighs?

    A little but mostly I care how much space it takes up and bigger usually correlates strongly with heavier. A lot of people don't have huge homes and even those that do probably have better uses for the space than needlessly large and heavy mechanicals and power systems. I'd prefer a compact Li-Ion battery bank to a bulky and heavy lead acid version even if the performance was otherwise identical.

  67. All or nothing by sjbe · · Score: 1

    And that was what I was basing my comment on, but failed to clearly state. And as long as that's true, they're still a better investment.

    Better is subjective and depends on the person doing the buying and what they hope to accomplish. If money isn't the obstacle then the better investment could easily be a higher performing Li-Ion system. They aren't better if the potential buyer opts out completely because it's too much hassle or too much expense. Right now that is the case no matter what battery technology you are talking about. It's both too expensive and too much bother for any type of battery for most people. The good news is that both problems are being resolved. I expect we will see a lot of companies making something similar to the Tesla Power Wall with a huge boost in ease of use and maintenance. Solar and wind systems are getting easier to manage and cheaper all the time. It's going to take a few decades but I like where things seem to be headed.

    Then they're not ready to live off the grid.

    People who live off the grid are fringe individuals who think it is an interesting lifestyle choice. Not being judgemental - I think it's cool - but it's an unusual perspective on life. That describes a fraction of a fraction of the people who might buy a battery system for their home even among those who have the technical chops. But frankly most of the benefits of being off grid can be realized without actually going off grid completely. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. Putting a battery bank in your typical suburban home with some solar panel can achieve a lot of the same benefits. It will be really interesting if/when it gets to the point where a large fraction of homes are generating much of their own power.

    You seem to think that being energy-independent is a carefree, easy way to life. It's not. Well, not unless you have piles of money to throw at doing that.

    Never said anything about it being easy. But there is no technical reason that it cannot be made so. The main obstacle really is price and that is being worked on by a lot of very serious companies, Tesla not the least among them. Early adopters always have to pay a lot more.

    I'd be more than happy to install a solar roof, have a battery pack, and an EV. I already have a well, and could run my heating off of propane if I needed to. I've already done some of that myself (some solar and battery) with more to come. I think every roof should have solar panels on it and every house should have a battery system but I recognize this will take time and a lot of technology development to realize. I don't really see a need to go completely off grid but I think it makes a ton of sense to be able to generate most of my own power without needing the grid 24/7.

  68. but in soviet hellgium by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    you have to wire your car batteries through the net and pay for using it or you're a terrorist tax evader

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  69. Re:EVs to power home? Not ideal by Bengie · · Score: 1

    one has to be careful talking about averages

    Very much so. I was using my limited experience to make my decision of using an average in discussion. In my case, I only use about 500KWH/m during the Summer, and I live in a duplex with almost no insulation and the AC unit is from the 90s, pre energy star. My AC runs constantly during the Summer. I also have several computers that run 24/7, and a TV or two that run 24/7 for the pets because of anxiety, better than drugs. Someone with a modern AC unit and decent insulation should use less power than I do and I use about 1/2 the average. I am not sure if the average includes all industrial usage averaged over the capita or the "average" person likes to have a chandelier with incandescent bulbs.