The fact that writers are actually having to drill down and do the math and see if Solar Power is less expensive in areas where power is cheap and available is mind blowing to me.
I find it fascinating, that, by 2017, there will be areas in Hawaii and Australia, in which you can make an argument that Solar Power is now less expensive that grid power.
What these authors seem to fail to recognize (or highlight) in their criticism - is that these lines are being crossed 10-15 years ahead of time. Nobody expected parity on these edge cases until at least 2025-2030, and we're going to see it in 2016.
And, what they also seem to fail to recognize, is that the curves for solar are going down. This is just the start.
"Deutsche Bank actually predicts that all 50 US states will be at grid parity by 2016 — that’s next year. (Note that it takes several years to build coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants.)
Deutsche Bank also predicts that ~80% of the global electricity market will be at grid parity by 2017. This is why solar power is scaring coal companies, natural gas companies, and utilities so much, and why you see so many anti-solar myths out there being repeated over and over again… despite being several years out of date."
There isn't any reason for the author to bring up those points because they are irrelevant.
This article is about whether it makes sense to buy a tesla battery right now. It doesn't matter if solar will be half the cost in five years. If that's the case, just buy it then when the numbers make sense.
Let's say someone wrote an article reviewing a new apartment complex opening in the Tenderloin of SF. If they said that the crime there is terrible so people should look elsewhere, would you be complaining if they didn't provide in-depth projects of potential future crime rates in the same area?
Solar skeptics are fascinating. They've been saying the same thing since solar was $1/KWh and they'll keep saying it until solar is $0.05/KWh. However, that won't stop solar adoption from growing, maybe it will just slow it down slightly. The more solar panels (and now batteries) drop in price, the quieter those voices will become. I think in 10 years they'll all just about shut up.
Have a look at Dave Jones' EEVblog video about his solar install, it include numbers from a year on his roof. He exported around $185 worth of power at 6c/kWh. The price of buying from the grid is 25.5c/kWh. In principle with a battery system that would be a saving of $786, assuming optimal charge/discharge (it's about 80-90% efficient I believe).
If you run the numbers, the battery slightly decreases the payback time for that system to ~7 years vs 7.5 with the panels alone. However, once its paid off, it could save almost $1000 a year if you live in somewhere like Sydney. This does make the big assumption that you store the electricity and use it optimally, but it's not unreasonable.
I would argue that in this case, it's definitely worth buying.
It's all about pack life and capacity decrease over time. Those you really need to factor in otherwise the calculations make no sense. Storing and retrieving a KWh from a battery pack has a cost associated with it in terms of wear on the pack.
Even if it is worth buying, the capital costs are steep.
Chris's main allegation seems to be that you have to have a hell of a lot of cash to even hope to make it worthwhile- and considering it's $5k for the cheapest battery setup, plus anywhere from $5-30k for your panels, I think he's not wrong, no matter what your electricity prices are.
An interesting take, and good to read some skeptical views.
But the economies break down slightly if you are not paying 10c/kWh for electricity. In Australia we pay more than double that, even taking currency exchange into account.
Also, we have to pay a 70-80c AUD "connection charge" for the privilege of paying them for electricity.
Basically, while prices are falling slightly, they won't forever.
I agree that letting others take the risk early on, and hopefully push the storage price down, is a good move though.
I've always opposed selling off NSW's state-owned electricity networks, because that will just lead to price rises in short order (well above the already-high cost of power). However, if storage plus home generation takes off, those networks are going to be worth pennies on the dollar, and we should probably sell them off as quickly as possible... then buy them back when the investors are ready to take a bath.
I appreciate that link. Currently, Solar and energy storage is at 30kwh. I'm sure within five years it will be competitive with the current grid we have in America. First gens are always expensive but at 3k usd, no one was expecting that yet. Tesla looks like they are accelerating the trends.
To add more to the energy debate, I haven't seen too many people talk about replacing ships fuel, since that accounts for ~20% of our CO2 pollution, from sources I read a few years back.
Maybe replacing our grid and all grids is a feasible goal which is why companies are tackling it now?
Trucks, ships, and rockets consume a lot of fuel and are horrible polluters. When we can replace perishables fuels with renewables we will finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.
"I’ll say it another way: unless your solar-powered home is entirely disconnected from the grid, or your solar system is big enough to provide for all your electricity needs, an expensive battery backup system like Powerwall does not make economic sense.
No doubt battery technology is important for the management of the power grid of the future, but at this time the average homeowner should let the big power generation utilities take the risks and bear the costs of perfecting the technology."
The numbers in that article are/were badly wrong. Many numbers are now changed (lines drawn through the old numbers). In particular, the numbers for solar generation have been 'corrected' by factor of 6.7 - the author says he used obviously wrong numbers because the website he copied them from had them wrong.
Although the author has 'corrected' his numbers, he has not modified his conclusions. Someone who does that is not worth paying attention to.
I would like to read a sober and accurate accurate article on Tesla's powerwall, this one is not.
ghshephard|10 years ago
I find it fascinating, that, by 2017, there will be areas in Hawaii and Australia, in which you can make an argument that Solar Power is now less expensive that grid power.
What these authors seem to fail to recognize (or highlight) in their criticism - is that these lines are being crossed 10-15 years ahead of time. Nobody expected parity on these edge cases until at least 2025-2030, and we're going to see it in 2016.
And, what they also seem to fail to recognize, is that the curves for solar are going down. This is just the start.
toomuchtodo|10 years ago
"Deutsche Bank actually predicts that all 50 US states will be at grid parity by 2016 — that’s next year. (Note that it takes several years to build coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants.)
Deutsche Bank also predicts that ~80% of the global electricity market will be at grid parity by 2017. This is why solar power is scaring coal companies, natural gas companies, and utilities so much, and why you see so many anti-solar myths out there being repeated over and over again… despite being several years out of date."
hueving|10 years ago
This article is about whether it makes sense to buy a tesla battery right now. It doesn't matter if solar will be half the cost in five years. If that's the case, just buy it then when the numbers make sense.
Let's say someone wrote an article reviewing a new apartment complex opening in the Tenderloin of SF. If they said that the crime there is terrible so people should look elsewhere, would you be complaining if they didn't provide in-depth projects of potential future crime rates in the same area?
higherpurpose|10 years ago
joshvm|10 years ago
If you run the numbers, the battery slightly decreases the payback time for that system to ~7 years vs 7.5 with the panels alone. However, once its paid off, it could save almost $1000 a year if you live in somewhere like Sydney. This does make the big assumption that you store the electricity and use it optimally, but it's not unreasonable.
I would argue that in this case, it's definitely worth buying.
http://www.eevblog.com/2015/03/16/eevblog-724-home-solar-pow...
jacquesm|10 years ago
sliverstorm|10 years ago
Chris's main allegation seems to be that you have to have a hell of a lot of cash to even hope to make it worthwhile- and considering it's $5k for the cheapest battery setup, plus anywhere from $5-30k for your panels, I think he's not wrong, no matter what your electricity prices are.
coffeecheque|10 years ago
But the economies break down slightly if you are not paying 10c/kWh for electricity. In Australia we pay more than double that, even taking currency exchange into account.
Also, we have to pay a 70-80c AUD "connection charge" for the privilege of paying them for electricity.
Basically, while prices are falling slightly, they won't forever.
I agree that letting others take the risk early on, and hopefully push the storage price down, is a good move though.
flashman|10 years ago
heimatau|10 years ago
To add more to the energy debate, I haven't seen too many people talk about replacing ships fuel, since that accounts for ~20% of our CO2 pollution, from sources I read a few years back.
Maybe replacing our grid and all grids is a feasible goal which is why companies are tackling it now?
Trucks, ships, and rockets consume a lot of fuel and are horrible polluters. When we can replace perishables fuels with renewables we will finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.
lotsofmangos|10 years ago
No doubt battery technology is important for the management of the power grid of the future, but at this time the average homeowner should let the big power generation utilities take the risks and bear the costs of perfecting the technology."
cough .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003 .. cough
bainsfather|10 years ago
Although the author has 'corrected' his numbers, he has not modified his conclusions. Someone who does that is not worth paying attention to.
I would like to read a sober and accurate accurate article on Tesla's powerwall, this one is not.