lemketron
Member
Sure, emergency use is totally different. I'd pay a lot per kwhr to keep my house running during a power outage.
Same here. I just want to keep my fridge going and maybe internet and some lights as well.
But for routine V2G, I think basing the cost on 1000 cycles makes some sense. You won't want to keep the battery in your car after it degrades to <80% of the original. Maybe you could sell it for a second use, and so it has some value, so those earlier cycles aren't as expensive as we think. Also, if replacement cost in X years is a lot less than $25k, then today's cycles aren't that expensive either.
But, in any case, given that uncertainty, I'm not giving power back to the grid unless they pay me a lot per kwhr.
The grid operators are paying a buck a kWh or more during peak times. Currently demand response reductions don’t enjoy the same compensation but hopefully we will get there. Imagine getting ten bucks an hour for an hour or two only when these emergencies happen as they did recently. 100K vehicles (and/or powerwalls) configured to do this would be like finding a new gigawatt power plant (or ESS). Current grid-scale ESS supplied closer to 3GW during the recent emergencies.
This is an interesting article describing the situation and pushing for better compensation on the demand reduction side. As an OhmConnect member, I can personally vouch for how frustrating it is to participate in a DR event and then get told I consumed more than my “baseline”.
Californians saved the grid again. They should be paid more for it
Smart thermostats, solar-charged batteries, EVs and other household devices can shore up the stressed grid. Why isn't the state going all in on incentives?
www.canarymedia.com