6 ms·

There's a missing parameter here: the number of recharge cycles a battery can have without losing large capacity , because over the long term - decades, like do

by petra 10y ago

There's a missing parameter here: the number of recharge cycles a battery can have without losing large capacity , because over the long term - decades, like done in this business, that's what determines the cost per kwh charge stored and supplied, i.e. what end users pay for. Without those numbers, it's not possibe to judge Tesla against the competition, for example Alevo, which claims more the 50,000 charge cycles, vs ,i believe, 5000 charge cycles for Tesla. For Alevo, the final cost per store/supplied should be ~3cents/kwh, over 20 earss lifespan, which should make grid storage very economical.

drcross 10y ago
Early compiled reports by Tesla users suggest that there is far more cycles on those cells than many had previously anticipated. https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/ https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/
- natermer 10y ago
  If you limit the charge of the lithium battery to something like 4.0v versus 4.2v (70-75% capacity) you can double or triple the amount the useful cycles. All of this is nice because electric motors are essentially infinitely rebuild-able provided they are not burned out or abused. There is absolutely no question that electric motors are superior to gasoline motors in every way. More torque, simpler, less maintenance. The problem has always been the batteries. Provided the batteries can be replaced without destroying a car and there isn't some sort of DRM protecting the car from third party batteries there isn't any reason why you would want to buy a new car except to waste money.
epistasis 10y ago
$0.03/kWh delivered is an order of magnitude less than current lithium ion systems which ranges $0.285/kWh - $0.581/kWh delivered to the grid after storage. [1]. Since the data going into Lazard's models are probably at least more than a year old, I wouldn't be surprised if its currently $0.15-$0.30/kWh to store and then deliver a kWh of electricity. The largest price difference in Southern California Edison's time-of-use tiers is from $0.11/kWh to $0.47/kWh, so I expect that the systems that Southern California Edison is currently installing are fairly cost efficient for them. If Alevo can actually deliver at $0.03/kWh at scale (and personally I'm skeptical of something that sounds so good), then that's game over for all fossil fuels and nuclear on the electrical grid. [1] https://www.lazard.com/media/438042/lazard-levelized-cost-of-storage-v20.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/438042/lazard-levelized-cost-of...
Nition 10y ago
I also wonder how it compares in cost to pumped storage hydroelectric. You can use excess power to pump water uphill and then release it to generate hydro power when needed. Requires the right geography but it can essentially store huge amounts of power and it's apparently pretty cost effective. California already has at least a couple that I can see: - Helms Pumped Storage Plant[1] - 1.2GW capacity - Castaic Power Plant[2] - 1.5GW capacity That's like 60+ tesla plants each. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Pumped_Storage_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Pumped_Storage_Plant [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castaic_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castaic_Power_Plant
- secabeen 10y ago
  Pumped storage hydro is great, but it is limited to places that have the right terrain.
  - Nition 10y ago
    I wonder what the cost would be of pumped storage in just like a massive water tank on a hill, or a big manually dug out lake, rather than in somewhere that could actually be a natural lake.
    - jccooper 10y ago
      Taum Sauk, an artificial pumped storage facility which famously failed, was rebuilt to 3600 MW·h for $490 million. So that was like $136 per kwh capacity, though I think they didn't have to do much for the lower reservoir (which was built in the 60s). Seems to be a lot better than batteries, though still requires appropriate terrain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- fcanesin 10y ago
  Sure much better, this California push is a subsidy for battery storage. Not a economical choice. Pumped storage has even the advantage of that it can be implemented during construction of hydroelectric power plants, you just need the interconnected grid, but you will need the grid either way with renewables. In other words: you don't need to build a reservoir. You just need to pump back of the exit of a already existing hydroelectric plant and build the power line to connect both plants.

by petra 10y ago

drcross 10y ago

Early compiled reports by Tesla users suggest that there is far more cycles on those cells than many had previously anticipated. https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/ https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/

natermer 10y ago
If you limit the charge of the lithium battery to something like 4.0v versus 4.2v (70-75% capacity) you can double or triple the amount the useful cycles. All of this is nice because electric motors are essentially infinitely rebuild-able provided they are not burned out or abused. There is absolutely no question that electric motors are superior to gasoline motors in every way. More torque, simpler, less maintenance. The problem has always been the batteries. Provided the batteries can be replaced without destroying a car and there isn't some sort of DRM protecting the car from third party batteries there isn't any reason why you would want to buy a new car except to waste money.

epistasis 10y ago

$0.03/kWh delivered is an order of magnitude less than current lithium ion systems which ranges $0.285/kWh - $0.581/kWh delivered to the grid after storage. [1]. Since the data going into Lazard's models are probably at least more than a year old, I wouldn't be surprised if its currently $0.15-$0.30/kWh to store and then deliver a kWh of electricity. The largest price difference in Southern California Edison's time-of-use tiers is from $0.11/kWh to $0.47/kWh, so I expect that the systems that Southern California Edison is currently installing are fairly cost efficient for them. If Alevo can actually deliver at $0.03/kWh at scale (and personally I'm skeptical of something that sounds so good), then that's game over for all fossil fuels and nuclear on the electrical grid. [1] https://www.lazard.com/media/438042/lazard-levelized-cost-of-storage-v20.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/438042/lazard-levelized-cost-of...

Nition 10y ago

I also wonder how it compares in cost to pumped storage hydroelectric. You can use excess power to pump water uphill and then release it to generate hydro power when needed. Requires the right geography but it can essentially store huge amounts of power and it's apparently pretty cost effective. California already has at least a couple that I can see: - Helms Pumped Storage Plant[1] - 1.2GW capacity - Castaic Power Plant[2] - 1.5GW capacity That's like 60+ tesla plants each. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Pumped_Storage_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Pumped_Storage_Plant [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castaic_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castaic_Power_Plant

secabeen 10y ago
Pumped storage hydro is great, but it is limited to places that have the right terrain.
- Nition 10y ago
  I wonder what the cost would be of pumped storage in just like a massive water tank on a hill, or a big manually dug out lake, rather than in somewhere that could actually be a natural lake.
  - jccooper 10y ago
    Taum Sauk, an artificial pumped storage facility which famously failed, was rebuilt to 3600 MW·h for $490 million. So that was like $136 per kwh capacity, though I think they didn't have to do much for the lower reservoir (which was built in the 60s). Seems to be a lot better than batteries, though still requires appropriate terrain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
fcanesin 10y ago
Sure much better, this California push is a subsidy for battery storage. Not a economical choice. Pumped storage has even the advantage of that it can be implemented during construction of hydroelectric power plants, you just need the interconnected grid, but you will need the grid either way with renewables. In other words: you don't need to build a reservoir. You just need to pump back of the exit of a already existing hydroelectric plant and build the power line to connect both plants.