Tesla Powerwall: profitable?

Forum solar photovoltaic PV and solar electricity generation from direct radiation solar energy.
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 04/05/15, 23:31

Specialists in automotive lithium batteries have long anticipated the 3 lives of batteries.

- The first will take place in vehicles where they will be the most used as long as their performance is greater than 80%.

- The second will be the use of stationary storage for smart networks distributing renewable energy. The BMS will be reprogrammed to optimize the longevity of the cells.

- The third will be the recycling of raw materials in order to restart the cycle ...

Economically, lithium is already more relevant than lead because of its performance, the number of cycles. BMS does not represent an additional cost in this case because they are also recycled from the battery pack removed from the automobile.

The storage of electricity will be one of the major challenges of the century, BMW, NISSAN and many others have many projects in this direction.

Obviously, intermittent renewable energies will be the partners of choice for storage systems.

Note that Google is also very involved in this sector and has launched a contest with a prize of $ 1 Million to miniaturize inverters. with the objective of reaching a power of 3kW for a volume of 0.66 dm3.
Google then wants to start mass production of these devices in order to drastically reduce prices. They will be the building blocks of future stationary and automotive electrical systems, areas in which Google feeds large appetites.
0 x
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 10/05/15, 12:55

elephant wrote:At the wholesale price, I buy them around 10-12 cents per watt hour, which would make 1200 euros for 10 KWh.

Yes, it stands, 120 € / kWh for lead.

Lithium has already been below 500 € / kWh for several years.

The LifePo4 batteries I bought for my electric car came back to me for less than € 300 / kWh.
If they keep their promises, they will be more economical over their life cycle than lead-acid batteries because they are supposed to last much longer ...

Manufacturers are far below 250 € / kWh, barely double the budget for lead technology, but with much higher performance in terms of load performance, in currents called in discharge or supported in charge, in number of cycles. .. In short, lithium technology is already more economical than lead technology.

Added to this are the savings in volume and weight (logistics costs).

Progress is rapid to the point that we begin to evoke a "Moore's Law" on the progress of batteries. Finally, the race is open to new technologies using new electrochemical couples, this week, the star was aluminum, yesterday it was gaphene, and tomorrow ... :?:
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 10/05/15, 13:47

Big success for Tesla, a lot of reservations for the proposed battery. 38000 PowerWall already in reservation.

t's barely been a week since Tesla unveiled its Powerwall energy system, which scales from residential houses to massive gigawatt-hour utility scale. Not enough time for much to happen, right? Well, apparently people have been waiting for something like this and there's a lot of pent up demand. On its earnings conference call, Elon Musk mentioned that they already received 38,000 reservations (the Powerwall will start shipping this summer) for the home system and 2,500 reservations for the much bigger, commercial-scale battery systems. That's a lot in less than a week (more reservations have no doubt come in since the Tesla call on May 6)!
...........
..........

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technol ... -2016.html
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 11/05/15, 11:39

What we often forget is that a mass market for the electric car will require the equivalent of 4 or 5 more nuclear power plants in France. I'm afraid this car will arrive before we can afford to recharge all the batteries ... : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 11/05/15, 12:33

Exnihiloest wrote:What we often forget is that a mass market for the electric car will require the equivalent of 4 or 5 more nuclear power plants in France. I'm afraid this car will arrive before we can afford to recharge all the batteries ... : Cheesy:
This kind of urban legend is one of the enormities that we haven't finished reading ... : Evil:

Rather than free reviews, I prefer encrypted data, so send us your calculation elements, I'm waiting for you ...

1 / The "mass" electric car does that represent how many vehicles and how many daily kilometers?

2 / Nuclear power plants today see the electric car with a good eye for consuming their production SURPLUS that they cannot sell.

3 / Ultimately, the electric car is an essential link in the intelligent energy networks that are also called Enernet or Smart Grids in which the electric car will be part of the game with the G2V and V2G functionalities.

To put it simply, it will finally become relevant to develop intermittent renewable energies such as photovoltaics and wind which will work hand in hand with vehicles and their batteries, the latter making it possible to absorb peaks in production / consumption and to smooth.

These peaks in consumption production are already a reality with nuclear power plants incapable of rapidly modulating their power and having to be assisted by hydraulic and thermal power plants.

The "ramp-up" of electric cars, which can never exceed 5% per year since the vehicle fleet is renewed at this rate, is therefore entirely plannable, within the framework of the energy transition, with the deployment of renewable energies intended for fuel this fleet.

For example, the 20m² of photovoltaic panels which cover a small part of my roof compensate each year for the consumption of 25.000km traveled with our new electric car ... Our old electric 106 were more greedy, our roof only compensated for 15.000km per year.
: Mrgreen:

The 10.000 electric vehicles currently in circulation do not represent, at the rate of 15 million km per year, more than 3TWh of consumption or 2% of the nuclear production of a single plant (130TWh / year on average). This currently represents 4 thousandths of nuclear production alone and since electric cars are not only charged with nuclear ...

I continue... :?:

The anti-nuclear are fond of this kind of arguments while supporting the car with fossil natural gas which must be compressed to 200 bar, with guess what ... electricity ... They will not be long in supporting the hydrogen car industry (which is an electric car 2 times less efficient than the battery electric car and whose hydrogen is compressed to 700 bar (see Toyota MIRAI) ...
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 19/05/15, 22:59

citro wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:What we often forget is that a mass market for the electric car will require the equivalent of 4 or 5 more nuclear power plants in France. I'm afraid this car will arrive before we can afford to recharge all the batteries ... : Cheesy:
This kind of urban legend is one of the enormities that we haven't finished reading ... : Evil:
[...]
The 10.000 electric vehicles currently in circulation do not represent, at the rate of 15 million km per year, more than 3TWh of consumption or 2% of the nuclear production of a single plant ...


Irrational method (current electric vehicles are far from having the power and the use that is made of thermal vehicles).
The rational method consists in calculating the really useful energy (mechanical) of the whole fleet of thermal engine vehicles, which can be estimated from the fuel consumption and the (low) efficiency of the thermal engine.
It will be the electrical energy that will be required to replace the fleet with electric vehicles, also taking into account their performance (much better).
The calculation was made: 4 or 5 nuclear power plants.
0 x
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 20/05/15, 10:42

Your method is only theory, impossible to make stick to reality.

1 / The ramp-up of electric vehicles will not be done in stages (unlike the start-up of a power plant).

2 / The network load caused by electric vehicles does not correspond to the daily load of a nuclear power plant (for example every morning between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. (and ditto in the evening), the vehicles are disconnected to go to work, which causes a huge peak in overproduction of power plants, so nuclear power plants are not suitable for charging electric vehicles.

3 / The construction and commissioning time for a nuclear power plant is too long to meet the needs of the evolution of the electric car market (and I do not mean if we want to build an EPR ...). On the other hand, renewable energies are faster to deploy and cheaper, as demonstrated by China which in one quarter installed photovoltaic power equivalent to a nuclear reactor and continues to accelerate the deployment of these energies.

4 / Your "rational" method is wrong because the great peculiarity of thermal vehicles is that they waste mechanical energy unnecessarily when their engines are running without moving the vehicles (traffic jams, red lights ...) or when the vehicles are moving without having need for energy to propel them (decelerations, descents ...). This calculation method is therefore 20 to 30% wrong and even much more in Ile de France ...

Irrational method (current electric vehicles are far from having the power and the use that is made of thermal vehicles)
This is exactly the kind of speech that was made a century ago about the thermal car to justify that it could not replace animal traction. : Lol:

Indeed, if in the collective unconscious, the electric car is often considered as a sub-car, the reality is quite different and many electric cars drive more than their thermal equivalent, the US and French statistics are formal. My wife and I drive more than 30.000 km per year and around me I know more than 40.000 km (a member of this forum) or even 50.000 km per year with their electric car, such this taxi which has already exceeded 100.000km in less than 2 years.
And power issue, some models develop up to 700hp and deposit the majority of Ferrarri and other Porsches ...

I only have a modest 82hp Volkswagen e-Up but its torque is such that it competes in acceleration with the latest model GOLF GTI while consuming only 12kWh / 100km, the equivalent of 1.2 liters of fuel. In 11 months, this car has driven 15.000 km
: Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 21/05/15, 09:20

@citro

Amusing. I give the method to calculate the additional electrical energy necessary to replace the entire fleet of heat engines, and your objection to point 1 is that the entire fleet will only be changed gradually. Obviously. But that does not call into question the calculation of the final balance sheet! As you said in point 4, it is also trivial that there will be a gain with stopping the engine concomitant with stopping the vehicle, but that is not what will change the order of magnitude of this balance, except for a few%.

I think that the electric car, a technology much superior to the heat engine, will become widespread in the coming years, as soon as the batteries are at a power and a cost that allows them to compete with combustion vehicles. I am obviously in favor of it, the electric car is only a "sub-car" today (power or range, you have to choose, and not to mention the cost or the charging time of the batteries), but not in the near future. You have the wrong fight, I am not an opponent, on the contrary.

But the petroleum energy currently used, quantitatively known, will have to be taken elsewhere, except to make thermal power stations. This is also why I spoke ofequivalent to 4 or 5 nuclear power stations, which does not imply that it is obtained from these power stations, contrary to the trial that you make me in points 2 and 3.
Talking about marginal gains and small advantages of the electric, without being able to quantify the new needs that there will be in electric energy while forgetting that the essential of the energy, and by far, is used for the electric as for thermal, to advance, overcome air resistance, rolling friction ... has no relevance. Obtaining primary energy remains a central problem and the ostrich policy is not my thing.
0 x
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 21/05/15, 11:25

All in good time. : Mrgreen:

So we come back to the subject of the subject:
The TESLA Powerwall is relevant and will be profitable for EV users by storing energy, preferably renewable (photovoltaic, wind, ...) and by playing the role of a "micro grid", ie a LOCAL smart electricity grid, which will greatly relieve the national grid operator. All this while improving the overall efficiency of the vehicle by using short circuit energy.

As I indicated above, my 20 m² of photovoltaic panels (3kWp of standard performance in 2009) provide each year the energy equivalent to the consumption of the e-UP to cover 25.000km.
Today, such panels cost, excluding installation, less than € 6000.

But no need to spend as much, in France, it sells upgradeable kits for much cheaper that can be increased over the years and savings made to save on the remuneration of a bank loan. : Idea:
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 26/05/15, 11:37

citro wrote:...
As I indicated above, my 20 m² of photovoltaic panels (3kWp of standard performance in 2009) provide each year the energy equivalent to the consumption of the e-UP to cover 25.000km. ...

What is true for a single house is not true for a building. The number of inhabitants of a building is proportional to its volume, the size of the possible panels, proportional to the roof area.
Your solution simply forgets that the majority of the population lives in the city, and that covering the campaign with signs to feed the cities does not seem to me the solution.
On the other hand if your 20 m² of photovoltaic panels cover all your automotive needs, it will be at the expense of electricity for the house. The needs for the electric car will always come more compared to the current situation.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Renewable energy: solar electricity"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google [Bot] and 161 guests