-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
SolarEdge does not see big jump in residential batteries
- Thread starter Cosmacelf
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Energy
Of course we don't know the details yet Tesla but concept is not new (we just think Tesla can do it better):
Tesla competitor Sonnenbatterie unveils community solar-storage system
Dive Brief:
- German battery company Sonnenbatterie on Nov. 25 introduced a community storage system it says will render conventional electricity suppliers obsolete.
- The system combines photovoltaic panels, batteries and a digitally control software platform as a way of allowing households to buy and sell electricity within a community.
- Sonnenbatterie is also offering a discounted battery prices for customers who join a German grid that the company is forming that would connect users of its battery system.
Last edited:
Yes. This is one of several reasons that Tesla having half of it employees in the solar biz is a scary proposition.
Now we will see Tesla and other battery makers in extensive lobbying for extending battery incentives regardless of the actual benefit. I do personally want a home battery. But the reality is that, in the continental U.S., a powerwall holds about 50 cents worth of electricity.
Per day, every day, so $185/year, but that's at 7.3 cents/kWh. Here in CA, peak rates can hit 50 cents/kWh, so that's $1267 worth of electricity per year.
Regardless, I'm not sure what the point is of measuring the cost of stored electricity in a battery?
SDRick
Active Member
That all sounds really wonderful, but even hypothetically, using optimistic numbers, show me the math on how this can work in the United States.
With net metering (especially being grandfathered in for another 17 years) unless the batteries are almost free, it does not make "cents" for me.
Have considered but unfortunately it involves living in Texas and not California. Lots of Californians live in mild climates where neither AC or heat is used much, so although the per watt price may be higher, the total usage may be considerably lower. Plus beaches, mountains, social tolerance, etc.
Well, those who abide by the golden rule (he who has the gold, rules) will keep on pumping up the cost of living in CA while they can. I guess one must make it happen somehow. But I don't know how sustainable the cost of living once a recession comes back (it cannot be an if, but just a when). Costs of 1100 sq ft homes in Palo Alto are now in the $2-2.5 Million range. I know all the perks of living there - and I visit SF occasionally. But darn it if it doesn't look like another bubble forming, economically.
SDRick
Active Member
The reason that residential batteries are not that popular in California is not because of the frothy state of the real estate market, it is because most areas here have net metering available making batteries superfluous and expensive.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
Yeah, with reasonable net metering at least. Any program where the net metering costs exceed the costs of owning/using batteries would become a candidate for installation of a pack.
It is, especially in SF. It's not just real estate though. Both corporate and private equity have increased a fair bit, as have mutual funds and time/savings deposits. My sense is that this is the result of QE/super low interest rates. I think the drop in corporate bonds gives a good idea about how free and easy money is.
As the fed increases rates, home values will drop (probably with some lag) with the increase in mortgage payment amount, and equities will probably drop in value as their earnings of treasuries/bonds/CDs approach and exceed market earnings, which seems to be what happened from the 1930s-1970s.
Last edited:
SDRick
Active Member
Are you aware of any net metering programs in California that are unreasonable? Is there an example of a net metering program where it is more cost-efficient to use batteries instead?
The California PUC has kept the net metering terms relatively uniform across the state. However, there will be changes to Net Metering in the future. Anyone who gets permission to operate on the current NEM Tariff (at least in PG&E territory) will get 20 years from PTO on those terms before they have to go to the "Successor Tariff". However, the utilities can always muck with the TOU schedules and rates as much as the CPUC will let them get away with. PG&E has already closed E-6, E-7, and E-9 and SDGE and SoCal Edison have also made rate changes that detrimentally affect solar customers. I have not analyzed the new E-TOU rates to see how much better or worse they are than E-6, which they primarily replace.
In California there is already quite large differences in prices at different times of the day, so rate arbitrage, or high priced usage avoidance can already pay for a significant portion of a battery system. For example, PG&E EV rate in the Summer is $0.444 Peak, $0.241 Part-Peak and $0.115 Off-Peak. The Peak period is from 2pm-9pm, so I self-consume most of my Peak period solar generation when I'm home in the evening. If you were going to install a backup generator and the wiring required for automatic operation, that would contribute another significant portion of the cost.
SDRick
Active Member
mimura,
I completely agree and understand your first paragraph. Your second paragraph seems to contradict the first. The rate arbitrage as you say, combined with net metering cannot pay for a significant portion of a battery system. In fact, I would argue that it does not pay for any of the battery system. Since most of us are grandfathered for 20 years in some kind of net metering and my current annual bill is zero, any investment in batteries (or even more inexpensive LED's) will not have any return on investment.
Once you hit zero, further investment is superfluous. Hence the title of this thread:
"SolarEdge does not see big jump in residential batteries"
I completely agree and understand your first paragraph. Your second paragraph seems to contradict the first. The rate arbitrage as you say, combined with net metering cannot pay for a significant portion of a battery system. In fact, I would argue that it does not pay for any of the battery system. Since most of us are grandfathered for 20 years in some kind of net metering and my current annual bill is zero, any investment in batteries (or even more inexpensive LED's) will not have any return on investment.
Once you hit zero, further investment is superfluous. Hence the title of this thread:
"SolarEdge does not see big jump in residential batteries"
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
Nothing in CA yet, but NV isn't exactly PV friendly with the eventual $38.50/month fee and 2.5c/kWh reimbursement for excess generation. Over 10 years, the fee alone is $4,500+. Owners that don't consume a whole lot and use more energy in the day than in the night might see some financial benefit from going off-grid with a powerwall.
If you have sized your solar to eliminate your energy charges through net metering on an annual basis, of course, you have no need for rate arbitrage as you cannot reduce your bill any further. My solar is sized for only the house (4.3kW DC) and would likely have a true-up between $0 and $100/year without EV charging. However, we have two EVs and no ICE cars now, so my annual true up has been $750-$950 per year the last 3 years. So, I could borrow up to $6,500 from my 4% HELOC and pay it back fully in 10 years if I could reduce my bill by $800 per year. I haven't done the calculation yet to see if my usage pattern would generate arbitrage savings that large or not.
Solar is not an option for many due to certain types of barriers, i.e., nearby obstructions, inadequate space, lack of ownership, etc. Solar hosting farms could remove these barriers. Same concept as collocation facilities for servers, only they host solar panels at a remote location that sell electricity on the grid via a PPA and whose customers, i.e., residents, businesses, and governments, can apply the income to offset their utility bill at home. Mentioned this idea to a senior leader at SolarCity several years ago. He thought the idea was creative. Probably just being kind. Perhaps SolarCity may want to take another look at this option once the acquisition is completed.
Isn't the general lifetime of a PW roughly 10 years (warranty has a step-down capacity size). So, after 10 years, a new PW would be needed if the degradation is enough - hard to know yet until some are daily cycled. (historically too, new solar inverters just after at 13-15 years) Just as any off-grid system, a per-kWh delivery of an off-grid solar+battery system is usually far higher than the surrounding grid customers. In Hawaii, should be the opposite if the installer is not gouging.
A good solution is legislation to help numerous people who may have chosen shade-trees to help with summer cooling issues. That would be community solar - where a farmer down the lane puts in 2 MW and then buyers are within the neighborhood and credits for production applied to their bill. Let the farmer pay the $38.50 fee, permit and install costs at a lower price than scattered homes getting individual installs. Cost of scale is one way that community solar projects shine versus "everyone having their own". You can also look at a neighborhood that is fed through one grid wire. If that is the case, the whole neighborhood could exist on a large community solar + battery project. 2MW solar and 4+ MWh battery. Dozens of homes can exist with this architecture. Perhaps Hawaii and Australia could be early adopters of the self-sustaining neighborhoods, though for Hawaii and elsewhere, US laws are really poor in supporting this kind of thing.
Last edited:
gavine
Petrol Head turned EV Enthusiast
Does everything need to be cost justified and have a payback? Like eCar Fan, I'm getting a Powerwall because I want one.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
Yup, it's warrantied for 10 years. It might be a little less than that in practice since the warranty in other countries is also a function of how much energy is stored. I don't think a replacement will be nearly as expensive though, since, at least in theory, you'll just be paying for a new set of cells, not a brand new powerwall (unless you want to). The cost really depends on how much power someone uses at night and how long it lasts.
If it can manage 10 years at one cycle per day, that's ~12c/kWh for storage. In my case, only about half of *my current power consumption would need to be stored, so my off-grid costs would be roughly (12c/kWh + PV generation costs)/2 + PV generation costs/2. That's without any demand side management on my end. I'm guessing I could get off-generation electricity consumption down to ~1/4 of total consumption, but as usual, YMMV. The more someone needs to store, the more their electricity will cost.
Community generation, and better yet, community demand side management, would be great, but I've also heard that's difficult b/c of laws governing utilities.
*I compared a year of hourly data on consumption to a year of projected hourly PV generation data from PVWatts.
Similar threads
