Green energy. Finally may start to make sense.

johntheexpat

Tesla unveils batteries to power homes - BBC News

Finally we may now start to see some real progress with the utility and effectiveness of green energy.  Up until now, the big problem (as I saw it) was that no matter how many solar panels you install across the country, you still needed enough conventional generating capacity to see the population through the coldest winter night.  And if you have that capacity, it really makes no economic sense to not use it.  A big capital investment that lies idle, not a good idea.

But now, with the imminent arrival of some pretty decent, domestically orientated, storage capacity perhaps we will see some point to it all (other than making a lot of money for people who can rent out their roofs for 25 yrs).

Several questions present themselves though.  Is 10KWh enough?  Would you need several of these not cheap batteries?  And then of course, the real benefits will arrive only if we can persuade people "off-grid".  Otherwise the country will still need to be able to supply the same amount of electricity at times of peak demand, but with considerably less electricity sold during the rest of the year to help pay for maintaining capacity and maintaining the grid so it can cope with the maximum capacity.
In other words, if you don't encourage people to go "off-grid", but allow them the luxury of being connected but not using electricity, the rest of us will end up paying for their energy security.

But going "off-grid"  shouldn't be that difficult.  If you have solar panels and batteries, plus, say, a natural gas based fuel cell (I think Worcester Bosch do one, (9KW of which 8 is heat and 1 is electricity)), then I think an average house with efficient insulation and electrical goods (including efficient vacuum cleaners, thanks to the EU) would be able to survive perfectly comfortably.

And getting people off grid permanently means lower capacity is needed so the most inefficient power stations can be closed and not replaced.  That is the way to reduce CO2 and perhaps more importantly energy dependence on other countries.

As for encouraging people off grid?  Not hard.  No VAT and make the kit tax deductible as the very least.  OK, you may encourage the richest people off grid first, but then they almost certainly use the most electricity, so get the big reductions in electricity consumption under the belt first.

EarthRod

Still got the problem of replacing the very expensive batteries every 7 years or so. Also there is a drop in battery efficiency as they get older.

People tend not to take that into account.

neilball

Tesla suggest they offer a 10 year warranty on battery performance too.

Sonic67

Doesn't add up:

Why Tesla's Powerwall Is Just Another Toy For Rich Green People - Forbes

Unless you have a huge amount of solar panels.

johntheexpat

No, that's true at the moment.  There are ways to reduce costs, though.  I don't know what voltage the battery operates at, but you don't need an inverter for say, your lighting circuit, as there is plenty of 12V technology out there.  Things like computers, etc can easily be run off a relatively cheap NIPS (my computer runs off one that cost 80 euros and also powers various clocks and the wi-fi.  If I were to connect the battery to a 12V source and disconnect it from the mains, then it would continue perfectly happily).

The trick would be to get the incentives right.  But if you can get people off the grid in big enough numbers, then that will have a significant benefit to energy security and costs for the rest of us.  Which is something that is worth paying for via subsidies, IMO

Sonic67

So if you spend enough money on this Tesla, inverters, solar panels and everything else you might eventually save something? Might. You can also save money by shopping around energy consumers and sticking some insulation in your loft. I'd rather do the latter. Aside from anything else I am sure solar panels and batteries also mean a continual ongoing cost and a lot of micromanagement (aside from batteries not being environmentally friendly). I can see you back it so crack on with it and let us know how you get on but I can't see it making a difference as for the majority it isn't going to be feasible. A few years ago there were ideas like everyone getting a windmill in the garden and selling power back to energy companies. I don't know a single person who actually did it.

johntheexpat

Sometimes I do wonder if you argue with yourself when there is no-one else around.

So if you spend enough money on this Tesla, inverters, solar panels and everything else you might eventually save something? Might.

Yes, you might.  Which with the proper incentives could well become "probably will"  Which is why I point out incentives would be necessary

You can also save money by shopping around energy consumers and sticking some insulation in your loft. I'd rather do the latter.

And in almost every case where someone has asked about spending money on solar panels, etc, I had commented that they should seriously consider extra insulation, double glazing, triple glazing and then even more insulation as a better option.  So Yes, insulation is a better option for those who are starting from scratch.

Aside from anything else I am sure solar panels and batteries also mean a continual ongoing cost and a lot of micromanagement (aside from batteries not being environmentally friendly).

Every form of electricity generation involves a considerable investment and on-going cost.  The National grid is in desperate need of upgrading, seemingly all the time.  Power stations have a limited lifespan and need to be replaced and the programme is continuous.  This is all an on-going cost to the consumer

I can see you back it so crack on with it and let us know how you get on but I can't see it making a difference as for the majority it isn't going to be feasible.

Where did I imply that for the majority it is feasible?  I said that it was probably going to be something that the better off would adopt firstly.  Which isn't a bad thing because the better off almost certainly use more electricity, so get the big savings in and locked down.  Reducing consumption of electricity by having relatively big users going off grid benefits everyone else.  It reduces the capacity problems on the grid, it means that generating capacity can be reduced and not replaced.  It increases energy security for the majority and so it is worth the majority subsidising those who want to give it a try.  Unlike (IMO) solar panels feeding directly into the grid, which don't allow for capacity to be closed down and don't allow the maximum capacity of the grid to be reduced.

A few years ago there were ideas like everyone getting a windmill in the garden and selling power back to energy companies. I don't know a single person who actually did it.

But we ended up with massive windfarms dotted all over the place, so what is your point?

Trollslayer

Here we don't need batteries as infeed works.
There are places such as India where solar power is profitable because it saves very long power lines and can eve be sold locally at lower prices than grid power.

Sonic67

I'd say the same about you but it seems you have chosen to argue with me. I thought this was a forum? You do realise other views will exist?

Sorry I am not whooping and hollering and just being realistic.
So if enough cash is thrown at it it might be worthwhile. The same as can be said about anything.

People being paid to use something doesn't mean it's a success.


So we throw money at power stations or we throw the money at the users of this. And? Sorry but again nothing to see here. A company came up with an idea. If governments throw money at it the company will get richer. I don't see any advantage with this in comparison to anything else.

As I said it's obvious you think its great so crack on with it if you like.

What is your point? You love the idea, great, I am more realistic. A few years ago we were all going to have a personal windmill in the garden and I think Call Me Dave even had one. That was the great idea a few years ago.

This means more batteries, it's something only the rich will bother with and needs money coming from the government as well (sorry, governments have no money, it will come from taxpayers). I still don't see any upside. Is it because you started a thread and are now possessive of it? To go down this route you need lots of solar panels, a south facing roof, installation costs, something to monitor it all, so a computer, or controller or something, various connections to connect into the mains, thousands on batteries and money to maintain it all, plus money to subside it.

johntheexpat

The upside, once again(!) is that if we can persuade people to go off grid, then that increases energy security for everyone.  And spending money to assist people going off grid is a better way of spending the "green subsidy" that we all pay, than paying companies extortionate amounts of money* to put solar panels on your roof, with no way of storing the power and hence no ability to reduce generating capacity and the maximum load that the grid must be able to bear.  Getting people off grid helps with both those issues.

*Extortionate in that they get up to 40p per KWh for electricity that can be bought wholesale for a few % of that.