-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
jhm
Well-Known Member
Wow, SolarCity is taking a bold stance. SolarCity to utility: you can work with us and benefit from aggregation services or we will enable mass defections.
Emboldened by batteries, perhaps.
Emboldened by batteries, perhaps.
@jhm. They are emboldened now, yes, but take a few things away and things do change. Fed Tax credits, state battery storage incentives (in some states) and also take away SREC selling and Net-metering programs... I don't know how things change without the incentives, but someone today having Net-Metering and SREC selling programs along with the tax credits does pretty well buying Solar PV. Some of the programs mentioned here are not going to be around forever. Batteries may need to take the place of Net-Metering over time. SREC markets have collapsed hurting many who bought into solar during 2009 and 2010 expecting payback. To me, I look at batteries as a necessary technology that needs to come to fruition as state power commissions are looking at ways to slowly ween solar PV customers off of net-metering since the real demand spike is later in the day and not mid-day when solar is running best. Be careful out there but in some ways, SolarCity is kind of acting like the white truck driver in this video facing off with the power industry: Youtube: CceSRMmhv3w
Last edited:
They have stated publicly every time until now that they thought disconnecting from the grid would be a terrible idea. They also worked with HECO at the NREL in boulder and proved they could hook up more than double the solar with no problems. After that HECO continued to drag their feet. It seems like they were somewhat forced to be bold here. They were patient for a long time.
That video is hilarious but a completely unfair characterization ... This one is a lot more accurate representation of the Utility/SCTY battle ...
PIMP VS KARATE MASTER Knock Out! - YouTube
The pimp (utilitues) are cleary upset when the Karate Master (SCTY) tells him he will actually benefit from distributed solar.
Last edited:
There are mixed messages floating around. Some press say "Tesla batteries will take customers off the grid" and Musk says in the presentation that utilities want to buy battery units. The common person gets confused, but the real issue is education of those on the street wondering what is really going on and who benefits. Clearly, peak load has been a grid problem for some time. Peak days in 2007 and also way back during the Enron shenanigans caused California major headaches and occasional voltage drops and brownouts and blackouts. High heat in the west and cold nights in the eastern and northern states can be some trouble. Grid operators pay excess backup generator fees and prices during these hot days and a major concern is how to shut down some coal plants while turning to more irregular power from renewables. Some standby generators only run a few days per year, maybe for a few hours. Baseload coal plants can run 24/7 while renewables have trouble doing that. Do power companies want us to go off grid? I doubt it and I wouldn't go off grid to spite the utilities. I would go off grid if net metering goes away and grid prices rise .10/kWh. But I don't see that coming for 10 years. By then, hybrid systems will be plentiful and relatively cheap. Now, if I lived in CA I might add a load shaving battery but in doing so, I would have my hand out for all the subsidy money available which can make the cost nearly free. I do think it makes more sense to install 100kWh systems for grid stability than dozen or more 7-10 kWh systems. Far better cost of scale deployments. One system in every convenience store and larger box store would easily smooth the grid power if they could be managed smartly through grid operators. Convenience stores run lots of refrigerators, lighting, gas pumps and deli equipment. Perfect deployment location. Running a load shaving 100kWh unit there takes the store nearly off the grid while it is load shaving, most likely at 20KW.
Seems to be entirely too much focus on comparing Tesla's new offering to traditional grid power generation, transmission and distribution. Don't forget that the costs of electricity production (generation), transmission and distribution are heavily subsidized, wasteful, polluting, massively less efficient, and in many cases - more expensive means of converting energy to electricity than photovoltaics, inverters and lithium ion batteries.
Bonaire are you short TSLA or SCTY at the moment? Just curious.
Last edited:
Perfectlogic
Member
It's like you are implying that utilities can't or doesn't use solar, remember that utility scale solar is much bigger than residental right now. Centralized energy storage solutions also has a utilization percentage advantage compared to batteries in every home, just like it is inefficient for homes to be completely off grid right now as you need to size your battery much larger than what you need on average. Don't hate on the utility scale battery use, it's the lowest hanging fruit.
I am all for utility scale storage, but transmission and distribution via poles and wires is not ideal long term for a resilient and efficient grid. Just like single points of failure in computer networking are problematic.
I think one important advantage of distributed solar is being overlooked here: virtual power plant(ing).
Distributed solar is deployed much faster then centralized solar or fossil fuel power plants. Distributed solar is much closer(on top of in many cases) to location of need. If utilities can use the distributed asset to offset peak loads, then that is worth billions of dollars in developing, deploying, maintaining centralized peakers.
Obviously, this will start out in "low hanging fruit" utility markets now and expand as DG price points continue to fall thus expanding that install base further.
Solarcity has has pretty much built out its current 200k+ customer base in neighborhood clusters, or specific utiltity clusters where solar has made most economic sense, which also has had an organically added benefit for aggregating for virtual power plants. So, Solarcity is already "ready" to build this virtual peaker plant in ideal areas where utilities can benefit almost immediately, or as soon as Solarcity installs this initial powerwall production ramp. There is a reason Solarcity is strategically prioritizing selling powerwall to specific customer sets in addition to economics right now...
Last edited:
As Elon pointed out in the PW/PB presentation, there are 2 billion vehicles in the world, with a replacement cycle around 20 years, which is a 5% re-build rate. If material resources are not a problem, then manufacturing is not a problem, it's just a matter of building manufacturing plants.
I agree that it would make sense for major solar installers to get into construction: the key thing is that if you're going to have solar, the roof becomes more than just something that keeps water off the house.
tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
SolarCity sent me an email yesterday thanking me for my interest. But the thing is, I didn't contact SolarCity. I signed up for Tesla Energy. I used a special email address for the Tesla Energy signup, just so I could see how Tesla distributes that email to third parties. Guess what email address SolarCity sent to.
Not a problem at all, but I do have a small grumble about how SolarCity and Tesla are executing on what is clearly a partnership. When done right, that is, when a customer of Company A signs up for something and grants permission for Company A to send customer info to third party companies working with Company A, and then you get an email from Company B, it says "Thanks for your interest in Company A's product. We're here to help you with Company A's product and our own value add services, etc etc."
This is where I feel SC and Tesla dropped the ball a tiny bit. Nowhere in SC's email to me does it mention Tesla, Tesla Energy, PowerWall, or anything of the sort. It just says "Thank you for your interest!" Interest in what, though? What if I'd never heard of SolarCity, and I got this email, and I'm like, who are they? It was only after checking the email address it was sent to that I confirmed that Tesla referred me to SC.
A minor complaint, but a lack of detail that they need to clean up if they want to accelerate crossing the chasm from early adopters to the mainstream market.
Not a problem at all, but I do have a small grumble about how SolarCity and Tesla are executing on what is clearly a partnership. When done right, that is, when a customer of Company A signs up for something and grants permission for Company A to send customer info to third party companies working with Company A, and then you get an email from Company B, it says "Thanks for your interest in Company A's product. We're here to help you with Company A's product and our own value add services, etc etc."
This is where I feel SC and Tesla dropped the ball a tiny bit. Nowhere in SC's email to me does it mention Tesla, Tesla Energy, PowerWall, or anything of the sort. It just says "Thank you for your interest!" Interest in what, though? What if I'd never heard of SolarCity, and I got this email, and I'm like, who are they? It was only after checking the email address it was sent to that I confirmed that Tesla referred me to SC.
A minor complaint, but a lack of detail that they need to clean up if they want to accelerate crossing the chasm from early adopters to the mainstream market.
I just went through the teslaenergy.com site. Did you unclick the "interest in solar" box?
Maybe the other partners aren't ready yet to offer the product like Solarcity is at the moment. It feels like the other companies have a deal to distribute and/or sell powerwall, but won't be selling it any time soon. Nor has Tesla disclosed how many powerwalls they are actually producing this year.
I see where you coming from. Even if Solarcity is the only one ready to take orders, Tesla ought to provide a disclaimer your personal information will be sent to a third party.
Last edited:
Foghat, I doubt many powerwalls come out this year. First, the CA SGIP program is waitlisting new projects. Tesla and SolarCity has to deliver dozens if not hundreds of commercial and government larger systems. The projects already are on the reserve list for SGiP money. I think that takes them through the end of 2015 with a good $30-40 million transferred from SolarCity to Tesla for equipment. That is where the money is rather than moving small projects. The powerwall was cute and good for lots of tv and press coverage but it needs some time to ferment. It was stated limited supply this year and full production once the GF is complete. Early announcement done last week possibly to prepare for a small to medium sized financing vehicle soon.
I guess we'll see how they execute. Solarcity did say they are taking powerwall+pv orders now to start installing in October. That to me means they intend to start installing during the entirety of Q4, which infers home storage+solar will happen this year. Not sure if that means California or one of the other markets Solarcity operates in so SGIP may not be a good indicator of how powerwall+pv will be deployed this year anyway.
I also think Solarcity and tesla know exactly how many they will sell this year and have already allotted that to home, commercial, and utility installs for 2015. I'm really now just waiting for the big press release or Elon at one his talks announcing powerwall is "sold out" for 2015.
Also, I'm holding to the virtual power plant concept as being more valuable to Solarcity AND utilities so powerwall may have a little more momentum behind it then you think. Not sure how long it would take to deploy utility level installs, but Elon did say it would take only an hour for powerwall. Speed might trump size in many cases with energy storage.
Last edited:
The term sold out is simply a marketing term used to describe, well, an inability to deliver something. No company should ever be sold out. Even concerts announced as sold out really are not. Now, they were sold out in terms of projects for commercial storage for 2015 already. The projects lined up on the SGIP have been there for a few years and there are rules that require interconnect 18 months after application or face two, now three, 6-mo extensions. They have the hawthorne project still on the books which they showed at last week's demo and the SGIP shows it is not interconnected. Maybe that is why it showed 0 from the grid (left meter), or the SGIp people didn't update the project yet.
the powerwall is not compelling to me, as an ev driver and solar pv owner. The reason is the lock in to certain installers and also the lack of one unit power. I want 5KW of continuous power out of an inverter and one single rack of batteries. If I were to install one. It would be 40 kWh and include the ability to island the house. The powerwall is only a small part of a hybrid island-able grid-tied with battery backup system. Yet some people think it will charge off the solar pv if the grid goes down. That is called islanding and there are no islanding specs because you need to send your typical solar inverter a grid signal indicating it is up. Also, you need to dump excess load into something if the batteries are full or the solar pv is outputting more power than the battery charge rate. To me, the powerwall is a verticle box of batteries which is a building block and not a solution. It fits into some people's needs but a hybrid grid tied system that load-shaves is really what people want and they need to get their installer to engineer a full system for them at a much higher price. They have basically made the 18650 cell available, nearly at cost, to the renewables community and load shaving solutions for commercial. Utility is a scaled commercial approach.
the powerwall is not compelling to me, as an ev driver and solar pv owner. The reason is the lock in to certain installers and also the lack of one unit power. I want 5KW of continuous power out of an inverter and one single rack of batteries. If I were to install one. It would be 40 kWh and include the ability to island the house. The powerwall is only a small part of a hybrid island-able grid-tied with battery backup system. Yet some people think it will charge off the solar pv if the grid goes down. That is called islanding and there are no islanding specs because you need to send your typical solar inverter a grid signal indicating it is up. Also, you need to dump excess load into something if the batteries are full or the solar pv is outputting more power than the battery charge rate. To me, the powerwall is a verticle box of batteries which is a building block and not a solution. It fits into some people's needs but a hybrid grid tied system that load-shaves is really what people want and they need to get their installer to engineer a full system for them at a much higher price. They have basically made the 18650 cell available, nearly at cost, to the renewables community and load shaving solutions for commercial. Utility is a scaled commercial approach.
These are important points, @bonaire. Net metering raises substantive question about how the (largely fixed) costs of maintaining the power grid should be allocated; any reasonable answer will raise the fixed portion of customers' bills and lower the per-kWh portion, making net metering a much less attractive prospect for solar. A bill to introduce SRECs here in Maine is floundering because of reasonable questions about why we should be "picking technology winners and losers" instead of just supporting renewable energy generally. I heard no good answers to this at the public hearing. (Maine already has a REC program.)
The big advantage of an off-grid solution is that the future costs are completely known. Any calculations that depend on the future of utility rates is on shaky ground.
i guess the net metering question boils down to the value of distributed solar to the grid. If having solar customers connected to the grid provides a benefit at current rates, then net metering is appropriate and necessary. Thus far, there are multiple independent studies that support the notion distributed solar is a benefit to the grid. Most notably, the study from Maine where they assert the value might be near double the current utility retail rate.
i think we all have to remember utilities operate on a cost plus model in a monopolist market regulated by a governing body or a rate payer elected board. They are set up to add more assets to the ledger. Most profit motives are determined by raising rates not reducing them and they can easily hold customers captive since there is no other place to get electricity in town. These governing bodies are there to look out for the interests of the rate payer. If something benefits the grid, it benefits the rate payer. Thus to impede that from happening through adding fees or cutting net metering is not only counter to the rate payers best interest, it violates a slew of state and federal anti trust laws.
this is, again, if DG is determined to be a benefit at retail rates which current evidence is leading in that direction. Also, it is fair to mention currently 44 states are implementing net metering and that list has only been additive since it started. The behind the doors conversations by utilities since 2012 has been distributed solar is a threat to revenues, not a cost shift onto non solar customers.
Last edited:
I dont think you are locked into using any installer. I believe Treehouse is selling it. That is just a home improvement store so I would think you could buy it there and install it yourself if you know what your doing it. It was described as "just works" so I would think install is pretty easy.
Anyone have the Baird downgrade that was issued this morning? I would any details anyone can provide.
Last edited:
SolarCitys Plan for Tesla Batteries: Share Grid Revenues With Homeowners : Greentech Media
more value to powerwall and Solarcity then at first take. Peter rive talks about what I was referring to as "virtual power planting."
utiltiies in CA may pay powerwall+solar customer $10 per kW month, which is pretty interesting and could result in significant cost/kWh reduction for Solarcity product owners/lessees at initial glance.
more value to powerwall and Solarcity then at first take. Peter rive talks about what I was referring to as "virtual power planting."
utiltiies in CA may pay powerwall+solar customer $10 per kW month, which is pretty interesting and could result in significant cost/kWh reduction for Solarcity product owners/lessees at initial glance.
- Status
Similar threads
