4 ms·

Insightful post. I've long suspected that the most viable path (only viable path?) is for Tesla to capture the profits and share a percentage with the equipmen

Insightful post. I've long suspected that the most viable path (only viable path?) is for Tesla to capture the profits and share a percentage with the equipment owner. Since the payoff to the homeowner happens "in front of the meter," it gets around the bureaucratic nightmare of fixing the perverse incentives in electricity pricing (eg the flat rate problem /u/rr808 mentions). All you need is one large aggregator to participate in the real-time wholesale market, issue commands to the "fleet," and divvy up the profits.

maxerickson 4y ago
Tesla could make an open API at just let whoever capture the profits. Then owners could group together on their own terms to get market power.
- Forgeties79 4y ago
  I hate navigating utilities as it is, now I need to join/form a co-op just to use my car? I don’t know man. This sounds awful. Like an even worse HOA. Unless I’m misunderstanding your concept here.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    No, do what you want, stick with giving Tesla thousands of dollars a year instead of opting into the coop that runs the simple algorithm and gives you the money.
    - schiffern 4y ago
      What makes you think a "simple algorithm" from a cash-strapped coop can compete with more sophisticated systems? If better systems (eg Tesla's Autobidder) generate more revenue, then even after paying a percentage you still come out ahead. Meanwhile an under-sophisticated algorithm will just end up being the "dumb money" in the marketplace.
      - londons_explore 4y ago
        The algorithm isn't awfully complex. If it's 6pm, and you need your car charged by 6am, and you need to be charging for 6 hours, then you just purchase the cheapest 6 energy futures for the 6 hours you know you'll need, and don't purchase the other 6. If at any time during the night the prices of the unpurchased futures drop below that of the ones you have purchased, you can sell one and buy a different one (rescheduling the charge). There isn't any better algorithm within those constraints. As long as the energy futures market is a fully liquid market, the price you'll get will be (on average) equal to the spot price you would have paid if you'd made the ideal scheduling decisions and bought on the spot market.
        schiffern 4y ago
        Fair point. For car charging the algorithm can be relatively simple (if suboptimal due to imperfect assumptions like "fully liquid"), but for stationary batteries + solar it gets much more complex. I still suspect more sophisticated players will find easy ways to "game" such an algorithm (eg pre-bidding). Whenever you have a large herd of predictable sheep, it's an opportunity for a wolf.
    - Forgeties79 4y ago
      I’m specifically saying this “energy HOA” sounds miserable/time-consuming just to run my car, and if people immediately have a negative reaction like that then the “solution” is potentially very flawed, if for no other reason than it hurts adoption. There’s no need to get so hostile over a simple critique. I also don’t think it’s reasonable to assume a “simple algorithm” will solve this. For the record, I don’t own a Tesla and I don’t want to. I have no plans of giving Elon Musk any of my business.
- schiffern 4y ago
  >Tesla could make an open API at just let whoever capture the profits. Presumably this is supposed to be different from what I said (sharing profits), so are you suggesting the service provider should take 0%? >Then owners could group together on their own terms to get market power. Thats precisely the part consumers don't want to do (and where Tesla can add value): aggregation and Autobidder.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    API on the car, not on the service. A way for the owner of the car to control what the car is doing remotely. If there are thousands of dollars on the line, third parties will bid against Tesla...
    - schiffern 4y ago
      Thanks. Yes, a more open car API would be welcome. For V1G (ie one-way demand response charging), I'd prefer cars also have a Set It And Forget It option: Always charge immediately to [ 30% ], then charge to [ 80% ] by [ 7 AM ] [ weekdays ]. And then it just Does The Right Thing. For configuring stationary batteries, the equivalent would be: Always reserve [ 40% ] backup, then trade with the grid when payout exceeds [ 20¢/kWh ]. Current generation Tesla systems allow some of this configuration, but not all.
    - YZF 4y ago
      I think the API already exists since you can use the phone app (e.g.) to control charging. I haven't looked at this for some time but while the API isn't/wasn't open it's been reverse engineered and I think there's an ecosystem using those APIs (not for this purpose but for other purposes). EDIT: I think in my location all that has to happen for demand to shift is for the power company (BC Hyrdo in this case) to offer different rates. They can do this statically or dynamically and one way or another things will shift. As a person I can figure out to charge my car or heat my house/water or whatnot for a lower cost. I don't think they care.
      - beachy 4y ago
andrepd 4y ago
> is for Tesla to capture the profits and trickle down some crumbs to the equipment owner. Capitalist labour relations, but now with your car manufacturer :)

maxerickson 4y ago

Tesla could make an open API at just let whoever capture the profits. Then owners could group together on their own terms to get market power.

Forgeties79 4y ago
I hate navigating utilities as it is, now I need to join/form a co-op just to use my car? I don’t know man. This sounds awful. Like an even worse HOA. Unless I’m misunderstanding your concept here.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  No, do what you want, stick with giving Tesla thousands of dollars a year instead of opting into the coop that runs the simple algorithm and gives you the money.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    What makes you think a "simple algorithm" from a cash-strapped coop can compete with more sophisticated systems? If better systems (eg Tesla's Autobidder) generate more revenue, then even after paying a percentage you still come out ahead. Meanwhile an under-sophisticated algorithm will just end up being the "dumb money" in the marketplace.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      The algorithm isn't awfully complex. If it's 6pm, and you need your car charged by 6am, and you need to be charging for 6 hours, then you just purchase the cheapest 6 energy futures for the 6 hours you know you'll need, and don't purchase the other 6. If at any time during the night the prices of the unpurchased futures drop below that of the ones you have purchased, you can sell one and buy a different one (rescheduling the charge). There isn't any better algorithm within those constraints. As long as the energy futures market is a fully liquid market, the price you'll get will be (on average) equal to the spot price you would have paid if you'd made the ideal scheduling decisions and bought on the spot market.
      - schiffern 4y ago
        Fair point. For car charging the algorithm can be relatively simple (if suboptimal due to imperfect assumptions like "fully liquid"), but for stationary batteries + solar it gets much more complex. I still suspect more sophisticated players will find easy ways to "game" such an algorithm (eg pre-bidding). Whenever you have a large herd of predictable sheep, it's an opportunity for a wolf.
  - Forgeties79 4y ago
    I’m specifically saying this “energy HOA” sounds miserable/time-consuming just to run my car, and if people immediately have a negative reaction like that then the “solution” is potentially very flawed, if for no other reason than it hurts adoption. There’s no need to get so hostile over a simple critique. I also don’t think it’s reasonable to assume a “simple algorithm” will solve this. For the record, I don’t own a Tesla and I don’t want to. I have no plans of giving Elon Musk any of my business.
schiffern 4y ago
>Tesla could make an open API at just let whoever capture the profits. Presumably this is supposed to be different from what I said (sharing profits), so are you suggesting the service provider should take 0%? >Then owners could group together on their own terms to get market power. Thats precisely the part consumers don't want to do (and where Tesla can add value): aggregation and Autobidder.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  API on the car, not on the service. A way for the owner of the car to control what the car is doing remotely. If there are thousands of dollars on the line, third parties will bid against Tesla...
  - schiffern 4y ago
    Thanks. Yes, a more open car API would be welcome. For V1G (ie one-way demand response charging), I'd prefer cars also have a Set It And Forget It option: Always charge immediately to [ 30% ], then charge to [ 80% ] by [ 7 AM ] [ weekdays ]. And then it just Does The Right Thing. For configuring stationary batteries, the equivalent would be: Always reserve [ 40% ] backup, then trade with the grid when payout exceeds [ 20¢/kWh ]. Current generation Tesla systems allow some of this configuration, but not all.
  - YZF 4y ago
    I think the API already exists since you can use the phone app (e.g.) to control charging. I haven't looked at this for some time but while the API isn't/wasn't open it's been reverse engineered and I think there's an ecosystem using those APIs (not for this purpose but for other purposes). EDIT: I think in my location all that has to happen for demand to shift is for the power company (BC Hyrdo in this case) to offer different rates. They can do this statically or dynamically and one way or another things will shift. As a person I can figure out to charge my car or heat my house/water or whatnot for a lower cost. I don't think they care.
    - beachy 4y ago

andrepd 4y ago

> is for Tesla to capture the profits and trickle down some crumbs to the equipment owner. Capitalist labour relations, but now with your car manufacturer :)