Tesla powerwall for solar energy storage

[Shiraz]

hi
not sure if this topic has been linked to before, but if it hasn't it is definitely worth a look. Have a look at the video - the presentation style is very annoying, but it is worth gritting your teeth and continuing on - the substance is breathtaking in scope and this is a truly disruptive technology. (came across it while looking at electric cars re Alexander's thread)
regards Ray
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall

edit: hope this (or similar) product catches on - then maybe we will never again have to hear the words "it won't deliver base load power"

edit 2: just found that AGL have announced a similar product. http://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/media-centre/article-list/2015/may/agl-is-first-major-retailer-to-launch-battery-storage With the way electricity pricing is structured, the Australian utilities will have to do something, because the payoff from battery backed solar would currently be very attractive for the consumer.

[Chif]

It's very exciting. I'd love to have a system allowing me to go off grid. This definitely brings it one step closer.

I think that what is offered by Tesla isn't actually all that cheaper than what is currently available. All the press associated with it however, is fantastic.

[xelasnave]

I have been off grid for 20 years because there is
no grid available.
I am down to 85 watt panel and 100 amp h battery as my needs are minimal.

[Shiraz]

Do you have any current costings? - I am way out of date. The last time I looked was a couple of years ago, when a 20kWH LiIon battery storage system was about $30k from memory - Tesla quote $3kUS for their 7kWH system. Zen seem to be considering a $10-15k system with about 10kWH capacity.
I think that the big difference with Tesla is that Musk probably has enough cash to buy a few utility companies if he wants, so nobody is going to be able to stall the introduction into the market or artificially inflate the costs - these things are probably going to appear in large quantities and at a reasonable price.

lovely situation to be in - presume that you have enough land to provide wood for energy. I have to buy energy :sadeyes:.

[xelasnave]

Wood for fueling a huge open fire at least.
200 acres uncleared darkmountain top

[Renato1]

US$3000 buys one a Powerwall which is good for 10 years. Plus one has to buy an inverter to give the correct voltage.

By their own website, the Powerwall will be able to power a fridge for a day and let one do one load of washing in the washing machine.

If one wishes to live at the standard of living like back in Edison's days, get a Powerwall.

If one wants to live like today and have effective baseload power, one is going to need five or six of these units. At US$18000 for ten years, I suppose that's not so bad. though that is only the cost of the batteries, one needs the inverter and the solar panels as well, and I don't know how much they cost and how long they last.

But the main use would be for people to power it up with either solar electricity or off-peak grid electricity, and make genuine savings by using it at peak times.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. Though things can still become problematic when the sun doesn't shine.

[Shiraz]

I see it completely differently Renato - these devices are not an alternative to the grid, but they do overcome the two major limitations of solar energy: 1. solar can now provide power at night. 2. the grid stability is no longer compromised by fluctuating generation. In fact, if enough storage could be made available, the utility companies could generate power much more efficiently since load peaks would also be smoothed out.

These things do not allow you to run your fridge for a day - your solar panels do that for half the day and the storage system only needs to do it for the other half. I could get about twice as much useful power out of my solar panels if I could store some (now I sell excess to the grid at nearly nothing - with storage I could actually use that power at night, rather than buy it back off the grid at 9x the feed in rate). That gives me an extra few bucks a day in the pocket (which would be a really good low risk return on investment), there could be a significant reduction in carbon pollution :thumbsup: and the utility company gets a better behaved grid and reduced costs of meeting peak loads - to me that's a win-win all round. Oh and I will also probably have some power for lights etc if the grid goes down.

Why would you think that getting a powerwall takes me back to the days of Edison? - I get to use all of my solar power for my own benefit and the grid is still there for the rest, only it could be a lot more efficient if these things were in wide use.

[Eratosthenes]

wow, you have a small environmental footprint xela. well done. Can you run a fridge with that sort of system? Do you have a generator as back up?

My on-Grid solar system is a 2.3 kW with a SMA sunnyboy inverter, and can generate about 2900 kWhr per year. The 66 cents per kWhr premium rebate for any power i put back into the Grid is what makes it work while. About 70% of the total solar output goes back into the Grid, and the rebate covers by annual electricity and gas bills with maybe $300 to spare. The pay back period is about 5 years for the total cost of the system.

I have been ecologically shamed and feeling very guilty now:(

[Renato1]

Hi Ray,
What their site says is that one US$3000 unit will run your fridge for a day and enable you to do one load of washing. If you only had one unit, and you disconnected from your grid power - then on sunny days you wouldn't have much power to do stuff like run electric ovens, electric stoves, air conditioners, electric heater, electric hot water. On non-sunny days, you'd have to fire up a diesel generator.

Suppose that everyone bought one or more of these devices. Then the "savings" would disappear, because the electricity suppliers would have to raise their price of off-peak power, and charge for supplying the baseload.
Else they would go broke and close down the generators. At the moment they are effectively supplying the baseload for free.

At the moment, when the winds generators are feeding into the grid - usually at a peak power time of the day, the coal generators can't reduce their output because they can't turn off the generators. They just shed the power. There is no reduction in coal usage. Now add to this situation millions of these Powerwalls reducing demand at peak period on sunny days. And the power generators have to have capacity going for peak period on non-sunny and non- windy days - and there is a big problem. Yes, they can build gas-fired generators which are easier to turn off and on - but it costs a lot of money to build a gas fired generator to just sit there being run intermittently. It wouldn't be economic without it being paid for by a baseload charge on everybody.

In other words, the Powerwall is good for frugal individuals, but only for as long as everyone else doesn't do the same. But not everyone will join in because a third or so of the population are renters, who are unlikely to have their own solar panels and Powerwalls. Most likely they will be subsidizing the richer land owners, as they are doing now.
Regards,
Renato

[g__day]

Trina have also soft launched their rather well position but (in my view 50%-60%) over-priced solutions - which are Lithium based storage plus inverter - in decent sizes and maximum power out ratings - but at $1,200 USD a kWh they did an oppsie. About $800 a kWh is the target I reckon must be hit for an economical solution.

The one I am really keen of seeing and what price point they hit are the modular 1.2kWh Enphase systems - as I love web based controlled, individually controllable and programmable storage solutions. A system with Enphase micro-inverters on any decent solar panel, plus Enphase storage on the new Enphase Gateway-S would be a killer design in my view. Time will tell as these technologies are now well less than 12 months away.

[GrahamL]

I have few friends who are completely off grid and its definately a differant lifestyle choice for sure , not thats a bad thing .

One I know generates and stores his power through wind and solar his home is just like any other to look at , his large timber shed out back was donated by another dissmantled and rebuilt , he does have a small petrol generater which rarely gets used ( washing machines and a family drain power ), hes got a recycled fuel bowser pump attached to it so he can fill his water supply tank up the hill or generate power. Milks a cow , keeps chickens and grows his own veges.

[Shiraz]

Hi Renato.

Your arguments only apply if you go fully off-grid, but there is no requirement to do that. I don't see this as being a way to go off-grid - but it does put solar energy right up there as a fully viable alternative energy source - and one that is now much more cost competitive in the retail environment.

Renewables definitely will change the way the utilities behave. However, it is not correct to say that there is no reduction in carbon pollution when renewables are operating. In South Australia we average >30% power from wind, but have enough wind capacity to meet over 100% of power needs in suitable conditions. This can result in a huge reduction in carbon burning - eg over a windy 5 day period last year there were occasions when wind power went to around 100% and then - "The impact on the rest of the generation fleet was considerable. ... during this period all of the thermal power stations in SA were shut down, with the exception of the two units at the coal fired Northern Power station, each of which ran at about 60 per cent of full load, and one of the four units at the gas fired Torrens Island B station, which was running at about 25 per cent of full load". This extreme level of pollution reduction is clearly only going to happen in exceptional circumstances with the current wind capacity, but I assume that there will be a much more general reduction in carbon pollution when we reach the capacity goal of 50% average power from wind. If local storage can flatten out timing of the (20-25% peak) solar capacity, the utilities can reduce their reserve capacity even further, with even less pollution.

I think that affordable storage is the final piece in the solar jigsaw - I really think that we are seeing the first stages of a revolution in power generation and delivery that is similar in scope to that faced by fixed phone and postal services. It is going to change the status quo and the utility companies will have to modify their business models. They will kick and scream, but we will still end up with a much changed environment over the next couple of decades. Maybe one day we will finally be able to get rid of some of those ugly power poles:).



thanks for that info Matthew - exciting times eh?



Hi Graham. I had not though of using this sort of technology to go fully off grid, but I suppose it would be possible if you could reduce the standard of living. Maybe the next generation of solar power storage will allow full and affordable off-grid without a living standard penalty.

regards Ray

[Slawomir]

Maybe carbon nano-tubes technology will allow for affordable means for storing electrical energy?

http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html

[clive milne]

Does anyone else see the irony in that the same people who kept telling us that renewables were not cost competitive are now complaining that they are making fossil fuel power commercially nonviable... as if burning coal was an end in itself?

Incidentally, looking at our washing machine and fridge, the efficiency sticker on both machines is only two stars and the consumption for these devices is stated at 91 & 464 kWh per year respectively, which works out to be 1.5kWh per day. One would assume that most people prefer to do their washing on a sunny day. One would also assume that the fridge uses a good portion of its power in summer when the sun is shining. Point being that the 1.5kWh that these appliance consume is more likely to be split 50/50 between your solar cells and batteries.
Ergo: your fridge and washing machine together will reduce your battery bank to around 90% of capacity on average. (If you install a 7kWh battery)
If you cook with gas and use solar, gas or PV-heatpump for your hot water, it should be relatively easy to live comfortably with a net-zero grid draw. I don't know what advantage their would be in doing otherwise?

[clive milne]

Brilliant!

Here's a couple more:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175137-sugar-powered-biobattery-has-10-times-the-energy-storage-of-lithium-your-smartphone-might-soon-run-on-enzymes

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/01/renewable-energy-breakthrough/

[xelasnave]

In reply to Peters question.
No fridge. It is surprising how you adjust.
I have lowered my consumption of red meat introducing canned fish.
I have a small gas stove, the $15 one they have just discontinued.
Using wood works to keep me mobile..If I want a morning cups I have to gather wood.
I wash clothes by hand using such as exercise.
I have a small 4 stoke jenny which I mainly use for power tools.
Tank water gravity fed.
Have not had a water bill or electricity bill for 20 years.
Can run a lap top small tv and charge phone.
Lighting is 240 fly as it is cheaper to but a cheap 240 light than mess around with 12 vlt systems, although these days there are plenty of 12 lights.
I am set up as if I was living on my boat..although on the boat I don't collect fire wood.

[xelasnave]

Plus solar heated water via a long length of polly pipe on the ground...boil it on fire if raining

[clive milne]

That is admirable Alex.
Whilst I do appreciate having a fridge and air conditioner up at the farm, it is completely off-grid. The battery storage has enough mojo to run a 250amp welder without breaking a sweat. The very same welder killed a 4kW generator stone dead from power draw. At no stage have we felt the inclination to replace the generator or connect to the mains that run across the property.
I also agree with the message implicit in your post; Personal happiness and quality of life are not proportional to energy consumption.

[xelasnave]

I could not be happier.
After law and real estate I wanted to live like robison crusoe.
Built my home mainly with my own timber rock and sand.
Built roads and a bridge by myself and an observatory...all very satisfying

Many would however find my life style a little harsh.

[rustigsmed]

I think they are a great 'start' (even though its been around for a while already - this should drive prices down though). I never really considered batteries that enviro friendly but I tell you I really hate paying crazy utilities and if I was building a new house i'd love to put cash into the build at the time go off grid with everything that was feasible. yes there is a lot of ongoing maintenance and I know a lot of people don't realise its large sacrifice going full gridless.

those enzyme batteries sound pretty cool, would have been even better if Elon got onto something like that before building his massive battery plant.

[tlgerdes]

Are you sure? If you are on the 66c/khw. then you should be sending 100% of your power to the grid, as it should be gross metering. You then buy back everything you use from your electricity company. You might have a Nett invoice (what you feed vs what you consume) that indicates a cost difference of 70% of the value.

[Eratosthenes]

The way the system works is that the power output from the solar panels goes through your home FIRST, and if you are using any power it is consumed, and the excess is then recorded on your Bi-directional meter as a separate tariff reading.

The only way you will get 100% is to shut everything off in your home when the sun is out. No fridge, no power usage at all.

My household has generated about 11,000 kWhr so far since we installed it. About 8,500 kWhr has been recorded by the meter as generation back into the grid - that amount is credited to our account at 60 c/kWhr (and now its 66 c/kWhr). The remaining 2,500 kWhr was consumed by our household as free power.

Economically it's best to put as much power into the grid as you can while the sun is shining, that way you get the maximum rebate at 66 c/kWhr. Changing your habits like doing your washing and running your dishwasher at night during the cheaper off peak power period.

In about 18 months the entire system should have paid itself off (ie the premium solar rebate will pay it off - a tariff in Victoria that will last until 2023).

happy with the system - the SMA SunnyBoy inverter is first class German technology. The only regret I have is not going for the maximum 5 kW solar system.

[inertia8]

Does anyone have experience with micro-inverters being installed? My property has unfortunate amounts of shading from trees in the park next door, which according to a couple of quotes means we'd need micro-inverters to reduce the impact of the shading and is one of the reasons we didn't end up going for it. The tarrif is now 8c/kWh or something so only worth it for removing daytime activities yes?

We have a couple of fish ponds running pumps and air blowers 24/7 which eat up a fair amount of juice and I'm looking into timers or other alternatives being mindful of not killing the bacteria in the filters from long shutdowns etc.

[Eratosthenes]

I attended an energy conference recently and micro inverters were becoming very popular products. Most of the micro inverter systems I saw in the displays were sold as complete with micro inverter/solar panel and wiring already installed. There were also inverters sold separately (about $200 form memory, for 250W micro inverter). There was one company also selling micro inverters for about $60 each

I can see what you want to do in order to avoid tree shading. The panels are usually electrically connected in series, so the voltage adds up but the current stays constant. This is great for keeping the current low, because very thick wiring is required to carry the current (amperage). The problem is when one panel is shaded the entire system drops its output dramatically.

I recall a company selling solar panel efficiency meters and testers to the maintenance industry (very pricey too, about $2,500 for a unit that looked a little bit bigger than a multimeter, with a fancy display)

They were displaying how efficiency drops dramatically even when a small part of the panel is shaded or hidden. As an example, the efficiency of large 190 W panel will drop by 50% if you place a business card on the panel. That is block just a few percent of the panel surface area and the efficiency drops by 50%.

The drawbacks of micro inverters installed on the back of the panels themselves is overheating and therefore losing their efficiency. Also you need to go up onto the roof to replace/repair any faulty micro inverter.

I have heard of people installing banks of micro inverters in the roof cavity or at ground level. Watch fire hazards and regulations if you install these devices in the roof. (not even sure they are legal to install there, with insulation etc). Also you need more wiring and therefore incur higher losses if you remotely install a bank of micro inverters. Advantages are that each panel will operate independently and therefor you do minimise losses if you have shading issues on your property. Also you can buy a few back up micro inverters and replace them easily of they fail.


So far my string of 12 panels (190 W each) have been working very well. If one panel drops its efficiency for whatever reason, then the entire string of 12 panels drops to the efficiency of the underperforming panel. Micro inverters avoid problem and are very cheap these days.

You will need to do the sums, but as I understand it, the more panels you need to install with micro inverters the less economical it becomes compared to a standard single inverter system - but you may not have a choice if you have partial shading problems.

good luck

[clive milne]

Perhaps a slight tangent, but there are few interesting things going on in the commercial energy storage world.

First up,
A Saudi energy company rocks the market with unsubsidised, renewable, base load electricity projects that undercut gas fired generation by 30%...in Abu Dhabi of all places:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/saudi-power-giant-sees-solar-taking-on-base-load-fossil-fuels-57218

And;
game changing, ultra long life, cost effective battery storage:

http://revolution-green.com/eos-aurora-zinc-air-battery-system-follow-up/

[Shiraz]

very interesting info Clive. I had not fully appreciated how much of an advantage there is in financing a big solar plant - provided that the technology has been sorted out, you can predict exactly what the lifetime costs will be - it is just the cost of the money to build it and a bit of maintenance. Coal and gas generation costs can go up (and down?) over the life of a plant as fuel prices fluctuate, but solar has no such unpredictable change in the future. This inherent low risk has to make it easier to get low cost financing - as your linked article suggests. Fascinating stuff.

[Renato1]

Hi Ray,
I've looked high and low for the article which demonstrated that the coal generators couldn't reduce their output, and that while the gas fired ones in SA could, they didn't. If I locate it, I'll post it here.

Your discussion keeps focusing on average power, and your assumption is that average power from renewables " the utilities can reduce their reserve capacity even further, with even less pollution."

There are a few problems with this.
1. The "pollution" is an ALP/Greenie line which many would dispute.
2. SA already has the highest power prices in Australia, and it will get a lot worse, leading to economic devastation (just Google "Spain Solar Power" to read the sad story in the world's most advanced solar energy country)
3. Renewables don't put out average energy, instead they put out energy that varies from between over 100% to near 0% of requirement. And when it gets to zero and there is no fossil fuel base-load, well people are going to die, especially the elderly.

From the Australian, 18 Jan 2014 in the middle of last year's heat wave,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/wind-fails-test-as-demand-soars/story-e6frgczx-1226804532811
"WHEN electricity demand peaked at the height of this week's heatwave in southern Australia, the total power output from the fleet of wind farms across Victoria and South Australia was almost zero.

The doldrums that stopped wind power production about midday on Wednesday coincided with warnings from the Victorian government and the national electricity market operator that electricity users faced the possibility of blackouts.

Figures supplied by the Australian Energy Market Operator show that between 11.30am and 4pm on Wednesday, as demand hit a daily peak of 33029 megawatts nationally, wind's share of supply fell as low as 0.3 per cent. When the electricity price peaked at $6213 in South Australian on Wednesday in the half-hour to 4pm, wind was contributing 0.7 per cent to total demand.

The capacity factor (the amount of electricity produced compared with maximum rated capacity of the wind farm) fell as low as 4 per cent in Victoria and 2 per cent in South Australia.

In addition, graphs supplied by AEMO yesterday showed that throughout the week, demand for electricity and the capacity factor of wind generation had tended to move in opposite directions.

The squeeze on national electricity supply during the week was compounded by the failure of a high voltage cable at AGL's Loy Yang coal-fired power station, which took one unit offline for 40 hours. In addition, the Torrens power station was offline for about 20 hours after a steam leak.

Industrial electricity users were warned they would be the first to lose power supply if load shedding was required.

The failure of wind to continue supply at times of high demand this week has highlighted a long-standing argument about the impact of intermittent renewable energy on the stability and reliability of electricity networks."

And on the same day from the Australian Financial Review
http://www.afr.com/news/wind-and-solar-cant-handle-heat-20140117-iy8oz
"More than $2 billion of subsidised investment in over 2 million rooftop solar systems contributed less than 5 per cent of peak power demand in *Victoria and South Australia during the worst of this week’s heatwave.

A lack of wind in South Australia during the extreme heat on Wednesday meant the state’s wind farms did almost nothing to stop wholesale power prices surging past $13,000 a megawatt hour, several hundred times normal prices."

When renewables hit 50% in SA, even with millions of Powerwalls in the State, I think there will still be significant problems with base-load reliabilty.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

If renewables are cost competitive, what does one need an RET for? Business should be rushing in to install them.

And why do the poor have to subsidize the rich through cross subsidies in the power bills (tenants have a hard time installing solar panels in their rental properties, then moving them from property to property)?

Curiously though, I have friend who works for a major company who says the company will be installing so many solar panels to provide all its electricity needs, with a six year payback period. And that this is due to the huge price drop in solar panels. If this all works out, the question is still, why does one need an RET?
Regards,
Renato

[andyc]

No, the pollution is a science line, understood worldwide since the 19th Century (following the work of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius; see the American Institute of Physics for a great history of CO2 (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm)), who predate the Greens, ALP and even Australian Federation by a fair way! You could always go back to 1958 to find Frank Capra (http://www.openculture.com/2015/04/frank-capras-science-film-the-unchained-goddess-warns-of-climate-change-in-1958.html)(a Republican BTW) warning of it, just as Gilbert Plass ran the detailed calculations (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#L_0609)to confirm the atmospheric physics was right. 30 years later, the IPCC was formed as the science had become even clearer, and nearly 30 years after that after a huge amount of further corroborative evidence (and 40 years of rapid warming as predicted), the ignorant of the political right still think they can try disputing the science, despite having had many decades to do so, yet turning up nothing. Why do they continue to politicise and disparage the science?

What you do about it is obviously social/political, whether you go renewable, whether you stick your head in the sand, or whatever ... but don't be in any doubt about what the science is saying, we can't burn all the carbon and not expect serious consequences. Realistically, we can't even burn all that much of what we have access to.

It's science that understood very clearly by every relevant national science academy in the world (see Wiki for a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_chang e)), >97% of relevant scientists (understanding increasing in relevant areas of expertise, corroborated by four different studies, as well as my own personal experience in palaeoclimatology research), and across a huge range of physical science disciplines. It is disputed by just 0.1% of 13950 published papers (http://www.jamespowell.org/Piecharts/Original%20study/originaltsudy.html), with an utterly paltry 113 citations between them. Heck those papers make even the charlatan Lomborg look good!

But apparently we're all in an unbelievably elaborate conspiracy, covering hundreds of thousands of people, across many generations of time! All just to hurt the poor, honest fossil fuel companies :lol:, who can't rustle up the cash to fund a research program or two to show the world where all us nasty scientists have gone wrong in physics, observations, palaeoclimate and modelling. The world's glaciers, ice sheets, and sea level (possibly the best global thermometer (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/), as >90% of the energy is going there) are in on the conspiracy too, who knows what's in it for them, but presumably they vote for the Australian Greens! The geological record, with it's mass extinction markers at other occasions of negative carbon excursions, and close relationship between large climate changes and the CO2 control knob (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml), is presumably part of the ALP's grand plan. Enjoy the El Nino and almost certain significant global surface temperature record this year...

[Shiraz]

Hi Renato.

This is not about global warming (please, please don't hijack the thread with that red herring), it is about the way that the economics of renewables is about to be changed by lower cost energy storage. In my house, short term storage will be a cost effective way to reduce my power consumption around the clock and there are implications for grid-level power and transportation.

The article in the Australian is fairly typical of the approach they take to energy reporting. My understanding is that there was heavy summer demand on the grid that coincided with low wind in SA and Vic (where most of the wind generators are). The low wind power levels reduced the grid power by about 4%(educated guess). Then two major failures at thermal power stations took out maybe another 20-25% (that's another guess, I couldn't find data). The rest of the grid had just enough capacity to keep it all together, but it was close. But what did the Australian and the Fin Review focus on? - they put the primary blame on a lack of wind power, which only contributed slightly to the problem, and completely downplayed the fact that the actual major problems were caused by outages at Loy Yang and Torrens Island thermal power stations (these were mentioned, but the implication was that they were only compounding side issues). It would have been far more accurate to report that the grid was under stress because of unexpected failures at two of the major thermal generators and that this was compounded by the predicted drop in wind power.
I am not saying that the current mix of energy generation resources is perfect and it does seem to be growing without a coherent national plan, but I guess that is what you get when the market reigns. However, it is disingenuous to blame all grid problems on renewables as some parts of the media are only too happy to do.

As to why we need an RET, I guess that the capabilities of renewables have not yet been fully explored and some of the newer technologies will undoubtedly have hidden gotchas - and so the highly conservative management of carbon power companies will not change past profitable practices without some extra incentive. In addition, there is apparently a concerted campaign from various players, including some parts of the media and on the www, to demonise renewables - some incentive has to be given to managers to overcome the reticence that will have been established by that blitz. However, I agree that it is quite possible that RETs will be superfluous in future if likely renewable cost reductions and storage capabilities actually play out in large scale facilities. And I guess that the main point from the various contributions on this thread is that cost effective storage may be coming sooner than expected. In the meantime, even without any cost reductions or storage, solar power is a very good investment for a business that operates during daylight hours - I guess that is why your friend's company is installing solar panels.

[andyc]

Ah, sorry Ray, I took the bait ... I am a bad fish! Let's keep the talk about solutions. I like the powerwall, and I am willing to forego the idea (oh the horror!) of running a microwave, iron and kettle simultaneously in order to greatly exceed the power output of a useful domestic battery storage. Energy is a luxury and privilege that we have all got accustomed to, maybe we need to re-learn that energy generation has costs of one kind or another (be it environmental damage, or intermittency or whatever). Eventually, distributed renewables of multiple generation types and storage will eliminate issues caused by local cloudiness or windless-ness, in the same way that mixed generation and extra capacity covers drop-outs when thermal stations go offline now. I'm very optimistic about that.

[gregbradley]

Another possible exciting power development are hydrogen fuel cells that generate electricity.

You can buy them in the US already.

Greg.

[AndrewJ]

I'm still waiting to see how the Aussies in the US developing mid sized reciprocating steam engines powered by molten salt reservoirs will go.
While not suitable for individual houses, it looks like a good ( and relatively cheap ) power system.

Andrew

[clive milne]

I agree with you in principle that the RET is a fundamentally flawed idea. The government should address carbon emissions directly.

Indeed, why should industry receive $10 Billion annually in fossil fuel subsidies?


I agree, there should be no subsidies for domestic solar, the money would be far better spent on utility scale renewable projects with the profit generated being put into more renewable infrastructure. That way, it could be largely self funded and would grow exponentially.

Incidentally, in a recent study by REC Agents Association (RAA) the notion that rooftop solar was preferentially sudsidising the wealthy was shown to be a myth. The highest uptake is found in rural and low-income areas of Australia.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/rooftop-solar-uptake-still-highest-in-low-income-australia-63263

Yes, it's a no-brainer.
There are companies now that instal systems with no upfront cost. You pay them off using the money you otherwise would have spent on electricity. In areas with high rates of solar insolation that can be as fast as 3 years.

Well, the RET is an attempt to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. It is my opinion that there are better ways to achieve the desired outcome.
Another answer would be that the playing field isn't level. There is a hugely influential carbon lobby group that has been investing heavily to steer government policy.

From an insider:

https://newmatilda.com/2009/03/24/has-carbon-lobby-captured-kevin-rudd

Knowing that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) would be relied upon from the mid-1990s as the principal internal source of greenhouse economic advice, a "who's who" of fossil-fuel producers, burners and users bought chairs on an ABARE steering committee. (That is, they literally bought them: the price was $50,000 per year, and payers included the Australian Coal Association, the Australian Aluminium Council, BHP, CRA, the Business Council of Australia, the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, Exxon Corporation, Mobil Australia and Texaco). This committee oversaw the creation of the economic models on which crucial assessments about emission cuts were based.

I'm guessing that they invested in one or two forum trolls as well.....

[clive milne]

These guys have come up with a solution that doesn't even need molten salt.
The pressure vessels are an off the shelf item.


http://www.terrajoulecorp.com/unexpected-technology/how-it-works/

[AndrewJ]

Gday Clive
Thats actually the mob i was talking about.
When i first read up on it a few years back, i was sure they were talking about also using molten salt as a reservoir to power a flash boiler.
As only LP steam is reqd it looked like a good 24/7 proposition.
Ie run off the solar steam during the day and put any excess energy back into the salt for night time load spreading.
Cant see much recent stuff on it tho.

Andrew

[Eratosthenes]

The reason molten salts are used is to store thermal energy that enables the power plant to operate 24/7 (ie base load power). There are numerous Molten salt based Solar Thermal plants around the world that are base load power suppliers (Spain, California etc).

Just skimming through Terrajoule's web site, they do claim to supply base load power using a condensing/steam flashing process which only loses about 2% of the original energy stored. They use parabolic reflectors which have been around for some time and so it appears that the novelty in the system is within the thermal storage stages. they dont use molten salts - just water.

It would be interesting to see what sort of scale they operate on, and what sort of "base load" power they actually supply. Very promising nonetheless

[AndrewJ]

Gday Peter
I think part of it is also going back to ( relatively) efficent piston based steam engines. By doing this, they get efficiency at low pressure and hence the storage mechanisms become simpler and cheaper.
They never claimed to be able to replace large scale base power but they do seem to be aiming for maybe small towns or rural industry type applications. Still looks very interesting.
Andrew

[clive milne]

Reciprocating steam engines are ideal for systems under 1MW, turbines are more efficient above that.

I suppose they would be a valid solution for small communities in remote areas, mine sites and the like.

Still, $100 kWh is better than any battery technology that currently exists.

[bugeater]

There are a lot of reasons why energy storage is beneficial - this is why so much effort has been spent trying to devise ways to store energy. One of the simplest is pumped hydro, where the water is pumped back into the reservoir to store the energy, but the places where you can do this are limited. I have a friend that spent quite a few years trying to develop a system that moved rocks into an out of a quarry using essentially chairlift equipment as a way to store energy. The efficiency of the process was ultimately too low.

The driver behind moves in this space are ultimately financial and market driven. Large storage facilities make their money because they'll buy electricity when it's cheap (high supply and/or low demand), store it, and sell it when it is at a high price (low supply and/or high demand). As a by product of all this the whole system should work more efficiently as the volatility in electricity supply caused by wind and solar are effectively filtered out.

Distributed storage also means the transmission and distribution networks themselves don't need to be as robust as the electricity can be distributed through the system's bottlenecks when the demand is low (and hence electricity cheap) and then that electricity can be drawn upon when demand is high. If the pricing mechanism is working, once again this is simply an outcome of market participants behaving rationally (buy low, use/sell high). Without distributed storage these bottlenecks need to be widened, which is expensive and ultimately everyone pays for it though their electricity bills - something like half your bill is transmission and distribution cost. The electricity itself is a small component.

Getting electricity networks to operate effectively is a a big problem when wind and solar become dominant in the energy mix. Many parts of Europe are struggling with this at the moment. This Tesla product seems like a step in the right direction, but it would be even better if it wasn't designed to store your own solar generation. I'd like to buy my electricity off peak and store it for the peak.

[Shiraz]

The more I read, the less it seems that renewable energy technology is the issue - as many posts here have demonstrated, there are lots of exciting new technologies for renewable generation and storage. The big problem seems to be that our local fossil energy suppliers misjudged the market by a huge amount and are now wallowing in excess capacity in both generation and distribution. Rather than see them go under, it looks like the government is trying to restrict competition from additional excess capacity as more renewables come on line - hence their desire to get rid of the RET or at least reduce it (as happened). By all accounts, we will continue to have excess thermal capacity for more than a decade into the future, so don't expect future governments to be too sympathetic to renewables - I suspect that the fossil fuel lobby (and part of the media) will not let that happen. I guess that the huge overcapacity also explains why we pay so much for power - someone has to pay for the excess thermal generators and power lines and we have significantly less manufacturing industry left to help.

So it seems that the primary driver behind the obvious campaign to demonise renewables is a profitability crunch in the fossil power industry - the problem is not that renewables are not yet good enough, but that they are already too successful. I wonder what impediments will be put in the way of home battery systems..

https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/webform/submissions/RET%20and%20Oversupply%20Report_Apr il%202014.pdf
http://www.aemo.com.au/News-and-Events/News/2014-Media-Releases/No-New-Power-Generation-needed-for-the-next-10-Years
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-08/australia-faces-unprecedented-oversupply-of-energy-report-says/5658926

[bugeater]

The price we pay for "electricity" on our bill is mainly transmission and distribution (T&D). Not generation. So we aren't paying for the excess capacity - investors in the unneeded generators are. We're paying because every man and his dog seems to need an airconditioning unit and the network needs to handle the peak demand when they are all turned on at once. In some states there was also a fair amount of overinvestment in T&D, which all ends up in your bill. Also, I think there were expectations of increasing demand which didn't eventuate. Partially this is due to energy efficiency measures. No doubt renewables play a part (and isn't that really the point? displacing carbon intensive generation?) but there are a lot more factors at play.

[AndrewJ]

I can vouch for the stupidity in poles and wires as well.
I had my house rewired about 20 yrs ago.
2 years ago, i got a knock on the door and a note that my wire to the house was "too low" over my driveway and would have to be replaced.
I told em to nick off and i wasnt paying. They said no probs, its free??
( and that i had no choice )
They added riser struts to the pole and still couldnt get the clearance, so had to add safety trip joints so the wire would break if a truck hit it.
Anyone who has seen my drive knows you wont get a truck up it :-)
When they finished, i asked why they hadnt done my neighbour, who still had an ancient two wire ( with uninsulated neutral and porcelain insulators ) going to her house from the same pole at the same time.
She was with a different retailer
All i can say is a lot of the money appears to be going into the pockets of the massively duplicated ( and bloated ) boards, executives, management, HR and advertising for each of these myriad new retailers.
The people who did the wires were only subbies??????
The old SECV may have had a few rorts going on in it, but it was probably still cheaper than what we have now, and it actually trained apprentices along the way.

Andrew