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.
[quote=Mack Knife;37570242]When a battery goes bad in a bank, it must be replaced with another used one for a best practice solution or better yet, the bank is replaced with all new because of the effects of a new replacement battery being adversely affected.[quote]
Deemed to be true in the lead acid days, but obsolete info in actual modern practice with improved technology. When a Tesla battery fails, as a few have, they don't scrap the whole battery, they just replace the affected module or submodule or whatever they call it and put it back in service.
Quote:
The statement that the system as a whole is unaffected is absolutely false and probably the result of a lack of practical experience, misunderstanding battery technology or something else. Regardless, it is wrong, has been proven wrong throughout the industry.
(C. None of the above. Please update your information base to 2014.
That is just silly. Battery storage would be a boon to the traditional utilities.
It CAN be a useful device to traditional utilities, such as adding them as buffers for the grid where there are a lot of intermittent power sources, such as solar roofs, attached to the grid. And in fact, that is something Hawai'i's electric utilities are are already installing, and is their justification for adding higher grid-connect fees.
But they have to balance that against raising fees so high that people just disconnect from the grid completely, using their own battery storage to balance supply and demand.
And be clear, Tesla is not the only company addressing this market. Leaf battery storage systems are already installed all over the country, and other companies are ramping up to join them.
It is the fact that it is now practical for people to detach from the grid and operate independently that the article in Bloomberg is addressing, and this isn't Bloomberg's first rodeo. So no, it isn't just silly.
If I were the CEO of a utility company, I would make it my job to be scared of every potential disruptive technology. Either embrace it and profit from it, or go out of business in the long run like the buggy whip companies did.
In the intermediate run, utilities will do fine, but when change comes to a line of business, it comes faster than you're expecting. Remember video stores?
Betting against technological change, and against Elon Musk in particular, is a loser's game.
I know people here in Montana that live off the grid (no electrical service). They have solar panels, and store the electricity in batteries. They also have diesel generators, that back up the batteries and panels, when the sky is cloudy, or need for electricity is high. A home will need $20,000 or more worth of equipment, and you have to do all you can to conserve electricity.
When it is a dark day due to clouds, or fog, etc., there is no solar power to take care of the batteries, so it is all generators. When the snow is flying no solar power, and you have to get your panels cleared of snow which is often no easy task.
If you are on a shady side of a mountain, or if the neighbor has tall trees, a high profile home, etc., you cannot gain with solar power. No the Musk batteries do not cause much fear in the utility company.
I see the problem for the utilities as a loss of their monopoly on generation and distribution. if outsiders start generating their own electricity the utility looses the ability to conceal real costs to the regulatory agencies and resultantly control over the prices the regulators allow the utilities to charge. the utilities not only loose sales but secrecy as well.
Not when it allows people to disengage from the utility.
Battery stroage has greater value on the utility system than on an individual system. The only people who will disengage are those demonstrating their "toughness." 99+% will stay on the local utility.
FWIW - large utilities have used energy storage to level a fluctuating load in order to operate the generators at a constant high output and efficiency. The do not use chemical batteries, except in a few specific locations, because of cost and complexity. The utilities store energy in the form of water pumped to a higher elevation. The energy is recovered by running the water through hydraulic turbines connected to electric generators. In most cases the motors and pumps are the same machines as the turbines and generators. In some cases this Pumped Storage is used in conjunction with large hydro electric power plants. The developments on both sides of the river at Niagara Falls is a prime example.
Unfortunately this technology does not work very well at smaller scales.
It CAN be a useful device to traditional utilities, such as adding them as buffers for the grid where there are a lot of intermittent power sources, such as solar roofs, attached to the grid. And in fact, that is something Hawai'i's electric utilities are are already installing, and is their justification for adding higher grid-connect fees.
But they have to balance that against raising fees so high that people just disconnect from the grid completely, using their own battery storage to balance supply and demand.
And be clear, Tesla is not the only company addressing this market. Leaf battery storage systems are already installed all over the country, and other companies are ramping up to join them.
It is the fact that it is now practical for people to detach from the grid and operate independently that the article in Bloomberg is addressing, and this isn't Bloomberg's first rodeo. So no, it isn't just silly.
Several gross conceptual errors on your part.
1. Utility scale battery farms will have a much lower unit cost than consumer owned batteries.
2. Batteries provide substantial capacity and ancillary services benefits that a consumer can't capture. It's worth more to the utility.
3. All utilities are aware of the value and very few consumers are inclined to disconnect from the grid.
It's silly people talking to ignorant journalists. Bloomberg knows nothing about utility operations.
Battery stroage has greater value on the utility system than on an individual system. The only people who will disengage are those demonstrating their "toughness." 99+% will stay on the local utility.
Quite so. There is so much talk about being "off-grid" in the Self-Sufficiency and Preparedness Forum, and it seems to be driven by ideological reasons. The folks engaged in that discussion probably represent a tiny fraction of the United States population.
The expense, the trouble to set it up, and the constant hassles will deter most of us from that sort of fantasy of "freedom".
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.
History of Energy
