3 ms·
The difference is mostly financial. Lots of people around me install/upgrade their rooftop PV system right now, and most of them get a small battery to make it
by pbmonster 3y ago
The difference is mostly financial. Lots of people around me install/upgrade their rooftop PV system right now, and most of them get a small battery to make it through the night. Both a new PV system and a battery is subsidized, and the money is easy to get.
Heatpump upgrades to existing houses are much more expensive, and for some reason the subsidies are incredibly complicated to get, and there's no guarantees for exactly how much you'll get approved.
Baby steps, I guess. Financial incentives (and the extreme price drop in batteries and PV modules) mean we're starting with switching normal household electricity consumption to renewables. We'll do household heating... some other time.
- XorNot 3y agoI'm pretty skeptical "energy through the night" is financially viable for anyone. Whenever I've looked into it, the cost-per-kwh on a battery blows away any savings over the cost of just paying for off-peak electricity. Which makes sense of course: if it didn't, then it would be more cost-effective for larger players to simply build grid batteries and arbitrage the power cost down to parity. The only real value I've seen is when your selling your own battery capacity under grid-stabilization programs (where some other power company is managing virtual power plants). And I'm still fairly skeptical if that's even a sensible business model (i.e. how much real estate cost can you be saving versus the costs of installing distributed batteries as opposed to centralizing them?)