4 ms·

I would think that just charging $2/kWh during peak time would be enough to bring down peak load without using any batteries.

raverbashing 4y ago
Well, yeah, probably. You'll also make a lot of people unhappy $2/kWh is very expensive. I guess by paying the powerwall users you can limit how much you spend with them. Not sure with how much local granularity can you turn them on, but it definitely helps
- dskloet 4y ago
  How can they pay powerwall users $2 if they're not actually charging $2?
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    Presumably most of the time they are charging end users more than they are paying energy providers.
  - nisegami 4y ago
    By amortizing that across off-peak pricing?
  - TimMeade 4y ago
    By not having to build more power plants or not putting the battery equivalent of all the power walls. Also, I imagine this is to get the power wall users 'hooked'. Then over next few years that $2 will turn into 20 cents.
    - dskloet 4y ago
      And hope that won't realize they're destroying their battery without enough compensation?
    - vineyardmike 4y ago
      This isn’t actually unique to powerwall users - this is a program for energy providers to supply emergency power. There’s a minimum amount of power needed to be eligible and a powerwall is too small. Tesla realized that they have the unique ability to manage a fleet of small batteries to act as a single large one to qualify. Will the price go down in the future? Maybe. Is this a gimmick to get people hooked? Probably not, assuming Tesla isn’t paying end users more than they make to join in.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    You're buying the bare minimum to stabilize the grid and you're buying it "delivered" already
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Only if people reacted to it reliably and predictably, which generally at the moment they can't. So they're being paid not just for not using this power at that moment, but being part of a system of "demand response" that lets the grid plan ahead and modulate demand. They also do this with people's AC and various large industrial energy users. But, time-of-use rates are a currently underutilized idea, and with greater computerisation, you can get more and more value from this on short-timescales. You want to start with the low hanging fruit first, and EV chargers are that easy win as they are being installed now.
- dskloet 4y ago
  > But, time-of-use rates are a currently underutilized idea Is it not normal in the US to pay less for electricity at night and on weekends? That's very common in the places (Netherlands and Switzerland) where I've lived, for as long as I can remember, and seems much more low-tech than using consumer batteries to supply back to the grid and paying them a custom rate.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    It's still 'controversial' and little used in the US: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/an-emerging-push-for-time-of-use-rates-sparks-new-debates-about-customer-an/545009/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/an-emerging-push-for-time-o... > A new idea is to vary the price of kWhs, making the price higher for residential customers during peak demand, and lower at other times, allowing for more precisely pricing kWhs at what they cost. > With today's flat per-kWh rates, "customers who use the grid more during peak demand are underpaying for the costs of meeting that demand," Brattle Group Principal Ahmad Faruqui told Utility Dive. "Customers who use the same kWhs during off-peak times pay the same bill and are subsidizing the others. TOU rates can redress that inequity."
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      The quotes drive home why it is "controversial"; because generation and transmission companies see it as a potential way to improve revenue, not as a way to improve the grid. I will assent to these powerful features when there is a strong legal guarantee that it will be used to improve the world, not to juice up someone's q2 numbers by charging me more. Remember that these are the same companies that by and large lobby against being able to sell solar power back to the grid.

raverbashing 4y ago

Well, yeah, probably. You'll also make a lot of people unhappy $2/kWh is very expensive. I guess by paying the powerwall users you can limit how much you spend with them. Not sure with how much local granularity can you turn them on, but it definitely helps

dskloet 4y ago
How can they pay powerwall users $2 if they're not actually charging $2?
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Presumably most of the time they are charging end users more than they are paying energy providers.
- nisegami 4y ago
  By amortizing that across off-peak pricing?
- TimMeade 4y ago
  By not having to build more power plants or not putting the battery equivalent of all the power walls. Also, I imagine this is to get the power wall users 'hooked'. Then over next few years that $2 will turn into 20 cents.
  - dskloet 4y ago
    And hope that won't realize they're destroying their battery without enough compensation?
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    This isn’t actually unique to powerwall users - this is a program for energy providers to supply emergency power. There’s a minimum amount of power needed to be eligible and a powerwall is too small. Tesla realized that they have the unique ability to manage a fleet of small batteries to act as a single large one to qualify. Will the price go down in the future? Maybe. Is this a gimmick to get people hooked? Probably not, assuming Tesla isn’t paying end users more than they make to join in.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  You're buying the bare minimum to stabilize the grid and you're buying it "delivered" already

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Only if people reacted to it reliably and predictably, which generally at the moment they can't. So they're being paid not just for not using this power at that moment, but being part of a system of "demand response" that lets the grid plan ahead and modulate demand. They also do this with people's AC and various large industrial energy users. But, time-of-use rates are a currently underutilized idea, and with greater computerisation, you can get more and more value from this on short-timescales. You want to start with the low hanging fruit first, and EV chargers are that easy win as they are being installed now.

dskloet 4y ago
> But, time-of-use rates are a currently underutilized idea Is it not normal in the US to pay less for electricity at night and on weekends? That's very common in the places (Netherlands and Switzerland) where I've lived, for as long as I can remember, and seems much more low-tech than using consumer batteries to supply back to the grid and paying them a custom rate.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  It's still 'controversial' and little used in the US: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/an-emerging-push-for-time-of-use-rates-sparks-new-debates-about-customer-an/545009/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/an-emerging-push-for-time-o... > A new idea is to vary the price of kWhs, making the price higher for residential customers during peak demand, and lower at other times, allowing for more precisely pricing kWhs at what they cost. > With today's flat per-kWh rates, "customers who use the grid more during peak demand are underpaying for the costs of meeting that demand," Brattle Group Principal Ahmad Faruqui told Utility Dive. "Customers who use the same kWhs during off-peak times pay the same bill and are subsidizing the others. TOU rates can redress that inequity."
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    The quotes drive home why it is "controversial"; because generation and transmission companies see it as a potential way to improve revenue, not as a way to improve the grid. I will assent to these powerful features when there is a strong legal guarantee that it will be used to improve the world, not to juice up someone's q2 numbers by charging me more. Remember that these are the same companies that by and large lobby against being able to sell solar power back to the grid.