Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Batteries are only needed if you want power during times when you are not generating power.
I never said they did. If you go back and read what I said - if you want to be off-grid you will need batteries because you will need to store the power you generated throughout the day. In my opinion, people who go solar and stay grid-tied are defeating the purpose - they are one step better off than someone on coal or nuclear power but they could be 100% "clean" and independent and be off grid completely. Tesla battery is a great step in allowing people to do that in an even easier fashion.
A ten year battery, that can only be cycled 50 times, is not a good choice.
Give it some time - it will get better. As a matter of principle, I let the ones who have plenty of disposable income finance the iterations of a brand new technology until the kinks are ironed out and prices drop.
In places like California, where there are generous incentives for installing renewable power, a homeowner could save about $2 a day, meaning the system pays for itself in four to six years, said Mark Duvall, director of energy utilization at the Electric Power Research Institute, who's based in the northern California town of Half Moon Bay.
In general $2/day against a capital outlay of $3500 is not very exciting, but if you feel positive about your reduced environmental impact, and you consider yourself a pioneer, it may be worth it. There is also the added bonus of some protection against short blackouts.
Now I am trying to calculate that for PA where I live, and I can't get close to $2 /day. Last month I used 50.7 kWh per day at $0.084 generation per kWh ( $4.32 per day to generate electricity only).
Now there is Time of Use pilot policy being offered by NRG home power for $0.119 during the day, and ZERO from 10PM to 6 AM. So I figure if I enroll in this plan my BREAK EVEN point with my current planis to shift 43.6% of my power usage to night, or 21.92 kWh . Maybe I can time shift 12 kWh by running the dryer only after 10 PM, and possibly turning off the hot water heaters during the day. So the Tesla Battery allows me to time shift another 10 kWh.
But I just don't see how to save any money in Pennsylvania (let alone $2 a day). To make matters worse NRG only guarantees that rate for 12 months. The other pilot program offers are much worse, so I expect that rate to change radically in 13 months.
I question how the news article did the calculation.
Even if you are using lifesaving medical equipment there is always the fear that the battery will run out. Then you need a generator to backup your battery.
OK I've been reading some more assumptions about return on investment. As I stated earlier there are people who save a fortune based on seamless recovery from a power outage. Even a movie theater could have to lose $3500 in ticket sales and popcorn and soda on a busy hot Saturday night in summer if they lose power. They obviously are good candidates for lithium ion batteries.
The second group is the people in small apartments with no room or air ventilation for a standard generator. Their life is miserable if they lose all power. This is the group that was forced to leave their penthouses in NYC blackout because they would rather deal with the thugs on the street than sit in a high end apartment with no windows to open, no air conditioning, and no water since it requires electric pumps.
Then there are the "I love Eton Musk", "I'm helping bring about the future", "I want to be trendy", "to hell with return on investment" group. The idealists, the posers, the too rich to care group.
These three groups may finance the battery production until it comes down in price.
But the big question is exactly what the lifespan of the battery will be. Some calculations figure on a mere 1000 full discharges. On the most optimistic end is some people who feel it may survive a 70% every day for 10 years. Reality will probably fall somewhere in between. If it survives 3650 discharges of 50% capacity that is roughly 3650*5=18,250 kWh for $3500 or $0.1918 per kwH.
Now it has been suggested that for ROI calculation I compare that $0.1918 per kwH to the cost of electricity from a power company. But even if I get free generation charges at night, I still have to pay some cost for local delivery. In addition no one is giving free electricity at night without jacking up the price during the day.
I never said they did. If you go back and read what I said - if you want to be off-grid you will need batteries because you will need to store the power you generated throughout the day. In my opinion, people who go solar and stay grid-tied are defeating the purpose - they are one step better off than someone on coal or nuclear power but they could be 100% "clean" and independent and be off grid completely. Tesla battery is a great step in allowing people to do that in an even easier fashion.
It doesn't have to be either or. That's why I'm a fan of a hybrid system. Solar, plus batteries and grid-tied.
It's only defeating the purpose if your only purpose is to be "green". That's not the only classification of people seeking solar systems and other alternatives.
I want to have power always. Having a strictly solar grid-tied system defeats that purpose so I would agree with that. Having solar and just battery back-up is also not at a point yet to guarantee always having enough power at a affordable cost for most everyday 24/7.
It might seem silly that Submariner mentioned the purpose of a battery but I am amazed how many people think if they have solar panels and tied to the grid without batteries that they believe they would have power if there was a blackout with no worries.
You have the best of both worlds having a hybrid system. You can be grid-tied whenever you want. You can be running only on output of the panels or you can be running off the batteries.
In a state with a good program and lots of sun you can produce, use, store and have plenty to sell back. Also if the grid goes down or lines during a storm you are good to go.
It really depends on your goals. Being "green" is a consideration like those here only thinking about the financial side.
Others, it's more about having power always under different situations. Being green is just a added plus.
It's only defeating the purpose if your only purpose is to be "green". That's not the only classification of people seeking solar systems and other alternatives.
Others, it's more about having power always under different situations. Being green is just a added plus.
Correct. There is a fourth group that nobody is mentioning: people like myself and wife, who live in a remote rural area that has no nearby power lines. It was far less expensive for us to install solar panels-batteries- generators than it would have been (by a factor of about 5) to have the utility bring power out to us. Some of the nicest land in the country is not served by the power grid.
We very much like independence from utilities. We like being in control of our own power supply and usage. We actually prefer to be independent of pretty much everything. We are not fooling ourselves that we are being "green". We are not greenies so much as cussed Yankees. If you look at how solar panels are made, and (esp) how batteries are made, you would conclude, as we did, that "there ain't nuthin' green about it"!
Correct. There is a fourth group that nobody is mentioning: people like myself and wife, who live in a remote rural area that has no nearby power lines. It was far less expensive for us to install solar panels-batteries- generators than it would have been (by a factor of about 5) to have the utility bring power out to us. Some of the nicest land in the country is not served by the power grid.
We very much like independence from utilities. We like being in control of our own power supply and usage. We actually prefer to be independent of pretty much everything. We are not fooling ourselves that we are being "green". We are not greenies so much as cussed Yankees. If you look at how solar panels are made, and (esp) how batteries are made, you would conclude, as we did, that "there ain't nuthin' green about it"!
Excellent points and very true.
However, even if there ain't nothin' green about the way panels are made - the fact that they will produce energy for the next decades for free and be kind to the planet - always wins
The government, in my opinion, should be subsidizing aggressively people who want to go off grid (wind, solar, geothermal, whatever works in a particular area). If you think about it - that would release the said government from being responsible for a centralized grid for many, many people, in addition to reducing the multiple risks the grid faces daily - from cascading failures to security threats . It is also an environmentally conscious effort.
Sadly, our government is owned by corporations who directly benefit from keeping people in the 19th century energy wise. Due to a corrupt political system where only people with money can talk - we are enjoying a new, modern kind of slavery, one that our forefathers unfortunately did not predict
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
