What ever happened to V2G tech?

[montreid]

@TEG - "“Panasonic was forced to respond, for example, to convert cells for household batteries etc. to Model 3.”...

I read this as - the batteries destined for Powerwall have been retasked to Model 3 packs -- hence the significant lack of Powerwall deliveries since the summer. All of the 2170s are going to Model 3 packs.

The whole NMC/NCA conversation with Tesla is done. In the past they had two chemistries with Powerwall 1 and Model S out of necesssity because it was their first foray into storage tech.

That has changed with 2170s and the evolution of the battery tech.

It is known that Tesla/Panasonic has been aggressively eliminating Cobalt altogether as it is the most expansive component to both chemistries. Powering the Tesla Model 3: Why the 2170 EV Battery Cell Will Give Tesla a Prolonged Edge - 1redDrop quotes it straight out of the shareholder meeting.

My premise is that Tesla/Panasonic has gotten it down that a single chemistry is used and plays into the whole Tesla ideology to pancake the complexity and variations to optimize efficiencies and production. Running two separate chemistry lines simply is counter to Tesla's philosophy and commitment to NCA along with that being so low in the costliest ingredient of Cobalt. My bet is they are running NCAs in the Powerwall 2.

Back to my wish- Powerwall 2 has a port to string tie EV battery to expand from 13kw to +60kwh more

 

[TEG]

Yeah, I don't know the answer to what they do now. It seems clear they had different chemistries in play before, but may have consolidated.

When the article said "convert cells from household to model 3", the word "convert" sounds like some kind of physical change, not just redirect output to a different use.
But I don't have real confirmation, just various clues that maybe there is a difference.

Maybe it could be something minimal like different labelling on the side? I am still leaving the door open that there might be some difference.

 

[thegruf]

Does V2G tech require new hardware in existing vehicles?

If not then Tesla can just sit on this until they perceive a commercial case, at which point they could suddenly leave everyone in the dust ... again.
There are a bunch of significant factors though, owner charging at superchargers and using this at home (controllable by software as it is within Tesla infrastructure), also those with free charging at work would take a hit.
Battery and car electronics warranty would have to be taken into consideration too.

That said, having this huge energy store in the garage unusable except for the car is a pity.

Managing utility peak load is one of the quickest and cost effective ways to cut carbon emissions which certainly align with Elon's ethos

 

[montreid]

@thegruf - right on point. The issues are what you brought up. Financial. It doesn't make sense to the energy/battery folk to do this, especially Tesla's Powerwall division if Tesla simply allows a back flow from their vehicles to grid support. PW sales would crumble, battery pack strain on warranty and the churn on their charging networks. The hardware (inverter) is already on board to accomplish this for Tesla.

Possible solutions uniquely for Tesla to corner everything financial AND align with Elon's ethos (and mine)
1. Require Powerwall connection for Vehicle to Powerwall to grid/home. This allows control of access to vehicle/powerwall flow management and powerwall sales. It'll decrease the 2-3 powerwall installations to single PW installs, but the sales would encourage Tesla Vehicle purchases itself for the ultimate grid/home support.

2. Supercharging network - easy to monitor the churners. Insert language of this with Powerwall installs and S/X sales. If x cycles noted and churning, suspension may occur. -- Most S/X owners of $80-120k vehicles probably won't take the time to churn on this for $5 gains.

3. Battery degradation - the demand drain via PW2 is 2.5kwh. It's like rolling down the street drain on the battery pack Not going to age the vehicle battery