Supercharger - Kettleman City, CA (LIVE 15 Nov 2017, 24 V2 + 16 V3 stalls, lounge)

[Muzzman1]

Taken from a small plane (Cessna 182), from a little over 1000 ft up.

Great shot!

 

[FlyF4]

Since commercial power is billed primarily by peak kW draw (we are $15.89 / kW) a small solar install could pay for itself fairly quickly.
If you have 20 kW of panel / battery, it could reduce the bill by over $320 / month by reducing the monthly peak 20 kW. This has nothing to do with how many cars charge, but yes, it would also reduce kWh's used for additional savings, which are variable. The $320/m is not variable.

Assuming a pro commercial install would be $3/w or less, $60,000, 2500kWh generated average per month nationally, uniform .12/kWh, is $300 + $320 = $620 x 12 month = $7440/yr About 8 years to payback, tax credits makes it 6 years. Yes, there would be less savings some months, but offset by high PV output and higher rates in the summer.

Off-Grid is silly as far as ROI goes. You balance capital costs by income from the panels/battery. You make the most possible money per kW and kWh as possible per dollar. As you approach off-grid, the income per $ of capital declines. You need to do the math.

So glad you said this. We see lots of people that often make a wrong assumption that the solar is to provide all the energy for cars and when they do the math, they see it isn't possible at practically any of these SCs with solar. Then say, so what it the point? Well you just made the point. It is to subsidize the power being drawn, not to provide all of it. The ROI especially in California is a LOT faster than in other parts of the USA. Especially if TOU is being used. A good long term investment to reduce energy costs at the SC.

 

[ecarfan]

Moderator note: 3 posts discussing this topic have been moved to their own thread in a different forum Need laws requiring utilities to charge lowest commercial rates to EV charging stations

 

[SFOTurtle]

So glad you said this. We see lots of people that often make a wrong assumption that the solar is to provide all the energy for cars and when they do the math, they see it isn't possible at practically any of these SCs with solar. Then say, so what it the point? Well you just made the point. It is to subsidize the power being drawn, not to provide all of it. The ROI especially in California is a LOT faster than in other parts of the USA. Especially if TOU is being used. A good long term investment to reduce energy costs at the SC.

I haven't read through all of the posts to this thread so apologies if this was covered before. When I visited this site earlier this week on a road trip, I spoke with a Tesla employee who was working on site (he was in a company MS and taking some data outside, not exactly sure what). I asked about battery storage on site. He said there was a good amount of battery storage in the rear of the site behind one of the fences in the rear of the parking lot. I didn't ask him how much, but he confirmed that the intent is to make this site self-sufficient with no need to rely on the grid, or at least very little reliance on the grid. With typical travel times and sun exposure, and given enough battery storage, I would think that this could be done. When we there mid-week, there were only a handful of cars charging and no clouds in the sky. Got to think Tesla would be able to bank a huge amount of energy in these batteries from Monday afternoon until Friday afternoon to cover the weekend demand. This may not be feasible at many Supercharger sites, but at this site, this would seem to be doable.

 

[ecarfan]

Was at this Supercharger today around noon and only 6 stalls were in use! (Three Model 3’s). This is the best Supercharger on I5 in the Central Valley.

 

[FlyF4]

I haven't read through all of the posts to this thread so apologies if this was covered before. When I visited this site earlier this week on a road trip, I spoke with a Tesla employee who was working on site (he was in a company MS and taking some data outside, not exactly sure what). I asked about battery storage on site. He said there was a good amount of battery storage in the rear of the site behind one of the fences in the rear of the parking lot. I didn't ask him how much, but he confirmed that the intent is to make this site self-sufficient with no need to rely on the grid, or at least very little reliance on the grid. With typical travel times and sun exposure, and given enough battery storage, I would think that this could be done. When we there mid-week, there were only a handful of cars charging and no clouds in the sky. Got to think Tesla would be able to bank a huge amount of energy in these batteries from Monday afternoon until Friday afternoon to cover the weekend demand. This may not be feasible at many Supercharger sites, but at this site, this would seem to be doable.

To comment on the math: First of all I think it is great that Tesla makes use of solar energy whenever possible to assist in producing electricity for our cars. I hope it continues.

The employees down there have some wishful thinking, but not reality. Here is why it is not possible to be totally off grid. As for energy production, of course it depends on many variables as we all know; time of year, cloud coverage, temperature, solar orientation, module efficiency, etc. There are a lot of ways to calculate this, and other postings from folks with numbers that are very close to what is really going on at this SC.

As a consultant, I looked at a system with 24 stationary SunPower modules with the same solar orientation within 15 miles of this location that generate (rated) 300 Watts peak power. During the last 2 years, they generated 25.62 MWh of energy. That is an average of 1.46 KWh per day for each 300 Watt module. From working with other contractors on this location, the modules output 325 (rated) Watts peak. Thus one module in that location produces an average of 1.7 KWh per day.

Using typical consumption numbers, each car gains an “average” charge of 62 KWh when arriving (a real average at this SC). Yes, some cars need a full charge and some just topping off. Therefore, it takes almost 36 modules creating energy all day to supply energy for just one Tesla. Since the facility has 760 modules, that means only 21 cars can be charged each day before power from the grid is needed. So it is not a self-sustaining facility, yet all of those modules do supply a nice amount of power (it’s a 250 KWh peak system).

All of the above also assumes a best case scenario that there is sufficient backup batteries to store all energy being generated (which there isn’t) by all of the modules (less cars being charged). Your assumption that weekday charging and storage can provide energy for weekend demand is unfortunately incorrect. There isn't that much storage. The batteries get drained almost every night.

Bottom line is that solar provides roughly 65% (over a week time) of energy; much worse on holiday weekends, spring break, and summer travel. The future problem is that as time goes along, with more M3s, S & X on the road, that percentage only goes down. It will never be off-grid and was never part of the planning. The system is meant to cut peak rate cost. A nice fast ROI in this location.

 

[Big Earl]

To comment on the math: First of all I think it is great that Tesla makes use of solar energy whenever possible to assist in producing electricity for our cars. I hope it continues.

The employees down there have some wishful thinking, but not reality. Here is why it is not possible to be totally off grid. As for energy production, of course it depends on many variables as we all know; time of year, cloud coverage, temperature, solar orientation, module efficiency, etc. There are a lot of ways to calculate this, and other postings from folks with numbers that are very close to what is really going on at this SC.

As a consultant, I looked at a system with 24 stationary SunPower modules with the same solar orientation within 15 miles of this location that generate (rated) 300 Watts peak power. During the last 2 years, they generated 25.62 MWh of energy. That is an average of 1.46 KWh per day for each 300 Watt module. From working with other contractors on this location, the modules output 325 (rated) Watts peak. Thus one module in that location produces an average of 1.7 KWh per day.

Using typical consumption numbers, each car gains an “average” charge of 62 KWh when arriving (a real average at this SC). Yes, some cars need a full charge and some just topping off. Therefore, it takes almost 36 modules creating energy all day to supply energy for just one Tesla. Since the facility has 760 modules, that means only 21 cars can be charged each day before power from the grid is needed. So it is not a self-sustaining facility, yet all of those modules do supply a nice amount of power (it’s a 250 KWh peak system).

All of the above also assumes a best case scenario that there is sufficient backup batteries to store all energy being generated (which there isn’t) by all of the modules (less cars being charged). Your assumption that weekday charging and storage can provide energy for weekend demand is unfortunately incorrect. There isn't that much storage. The batteries get drained almost every night.

Bottom line is that solar provides roughly 65% (over a week time) of energy; much worse on holiday weekends, spring break, and summer travel. The future problem is that as time goes along, with more M3s, S & X on the road, that percentage only goes down. It will never be off-grid and was never part of the planning. The system is meant to cut peak rate cost. A nice fast ROI in this location.

Don’t forget the building’s consumption of between ~10 and 30 kW around-the-clock. That’s about 6 car’s worth of energy per day.

 

[MarcG]

If there’s enough space, and the land isn’t restricted for other uses, Tesla could technically install a ground-mounted solar system nearby with lots of storage that would be large enough to cover 100% of the supercharger’s energy needs on a continuous basis.
Now, whether that is a financially advantageous solution or not is completely another question.. I guess it’s a question of what time horizon one considers.

 

[PLUS EV]

If there’s enough space, and the land isn’t restricted for other uses, Tesla could technically install a ground-mounted solar system nearby with lots of storage that would be large enough to cover 100% of the supercharger’s energy needs on a continuous basis.
Now, whether that is a financially advantageous solution or not is completely another question.. I guess it’s a question of what time horizon one considers.

This is exactly what I thought but I'm not an expert on the topic by any means so I didn't chime in. But yes, at least in theory it seems like with enough panels (and enough space that they require) and enough battery storage, they could be completely off the grid. Obviously though from what reading others have posted in this thread, that probably wouldn't be practical.

 

[FlyF4]

Don’t forget the building’s consumption of between ~10 and 30 kW around-the-clock. That’s about 6 car’s worth of energy per day.

yup, right. You mean 30 KWH for a whole day (a little over 3-4 KW day and little at night). Forgot to mention that. It's about 40 KWh per day (depending on air/heat needs) Not 6 cars of energy. Less than one car of energy (about 15 modules).

Had to edit the above. Siri went crazy on me!

 

[FlyF4]

If there’s enough space, and the land isn’t restricted for other uses, Tesla could technically install a ground-mounted solar system nearby with lots of storage that would be large enough to cover 100% of the supercharger’s energy needs on a continuous basis.
Now, whether that is a financially advantageous solution or not is completely another question.. I guess it’s a question of what time horizon one considers.

yes, that is a really good point. Glad you mention it. It is not as much advantage at this location to add more modules. I've been looking at this closely since one of my other clients in that area is HIE. They are setting up destination chargers and another charger station in Bakersfield, and looking into adding solar on the roof.

Because the energy rate structure is tiered, as more modules are added, the ROI becomes longer because those modules are providing energy to offset a lowered tier electric company cost. Still the ROI is good in that area. It factors out to be about 13 years for additional modules, whereas existing ones are 10 years and under for any company not just Tesla. Module prices keep getting cheaper and more efficient so no rush to do it now.

Also, on a ground mount, it now makes more sense to do tracking which increases solar production about 17% there. The tracking jacks and equipment are cheaper and more reliable now, so starts to make sense to do tracking in that area. ROI on single-axis equipment is good.

 

[Big Earl]

yup, right. You mean 30 KWH for a whole day (a little over 3-4 KW day and little at night). Forgot to mention that. It's about 40 KWh per day (depending on air/heat needs) Not 6 cars of energy. Less than one car of energy (about 15 modules).

Had to edit the above. Siri went crazy on me!

3-4 kW for HVAC and lighting for that whole facility? A single one of the rooftop air conditioning units will pull that much power and there are two of them, plus the one ton mini split for the comm room (900 watts), plus all of the beverage coolers inside (500 watts each), plus the coffee machines, plus all of the lighting (LED, but it still adds up).

Now that I add up all of the power consumers after watching a few tour videos, I will revise my estimate to 5-20 kW facility load, excluding car charging. I’m thinking their average day is around 150 kWh.

 

[FlyF4]

3-4 kW for HVAC and lighting for that whole facility? A single one of the rooftop air conditioning units will pull that much power and there are two of them, plus the one ton mini split for the comm room (900 watts), plus all of the beverage coolers inside (500 watts each), plus the coffee machines, plus all of the lighting (LED, but it still adds up).

Now that I add up all of the power consumers after watching a few tour videos, I will revise my estimate to 5-20 kW facility load, excluding car charging. I’m thinking their average day is around 150 kWh.

Yea Earl, all good info, but you know that all those pieces of equipment don't run 100% duty cycle. In reality, about 20% duty cycle. I agree some days can be 200KWH and some can be 40 KWH for a couple months. I know for fact that it really was 28KWH during the night last week. So whether it is a little or a lot, I think we agree that the bottom line is no such facility, especially this one, will ever be off grid as currently designed You are helping to support that point. Thanks,

 

[Big Earl]

Fair enough! Thanks for the info on how much overnight energy was actually used.

 

[ecarfan]

Posts about planning a one day LA to Fresno round trip were moved to their own thread in the California forum at Seeking advice on charging stops for LA to Fresno round trip in a day

Thanks.

 

[4SUPER9]

I have received some awesome advice on traveling through Kettleman. Now, what places are recommended for either a late breakfast or early lunch? Hey, it will be a Sunday, so let's call it brunch! My son will be heading straight into the wilderness for 7 days, so I would like to send him off with a good meal.

 

[emupilot]

After you give him a good meal but before you leave, please take a picture of the monitor screen in the lounge showing supercharger usage. Us supercharger geeks are starting to have withdrawal symptoms from lack of data.

 

[4SUPER9]

After you give him a good meal but before you leave, please take a picture of the monitor screen in the lounge showing supercharger usage. Us supercharger geeks are starting to have withdrawal symptoms from lack of data.

I was wondering where people getting those pictures! I used to visit the one at Hawthorne all the time, back in the day. I’m looking forward to that again

 

[Graffi]

Except for San Diego where the 12 slots are almost always full, and most of the time with a waiting line of 20 to 40 minutes. This is why I charge at home, it is cheaper.

Did a San Diego to Sacramento round trip this weekend and stopped at Kettleman City each way, Friday at 8:55 am. and Sunday at 2:42 am. This morning there was only one other car charging, with the couple inside sleeping. Before I left I thought of waking them just in case, but decided to let them sleep. Anyway I took photos of the screen.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Lots of reasons to add solar to charging stations. There is a charge from the electric company due to the maximum demand they must enable. Adding solar will reduce the maximum demand by charging batteries during low usage times, and drawing down those batteries when demand is at it's greatest.

The panels also provide welcome shade when charging in hot/Sunny areas.

Solar will also offset the electricity the company needs to buy from the electric company.

Solar can also provide the most juice during the most expensive time for TOU commercial hookups.

It is also a study site for Tesla to help them determine how Solar will fit into their mix for future stations.