Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Energy

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 590 posts

Re: Tesla Energy

#171

Post by rosser »

colechristensen wrote: post #164
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may well be how you feel, but lately I feel like any burning of petrol is just disgusting (though I still do it as I cannot afford alternatives at the moment). I want to completely divest from fossil fuels, even for intermittent use. That's as much for the social value of saying "yeah I don't use fossil fuels and it's great" as it is for the environmental impact. I want to try all this tech to be an early adopte…

Isn't that a bit of an overreaction? You might want to reevaluate any moral position you have where a significant basis of your values is the ability to brag about them. I would be fairly disgusted if someone said a significant amount of the reason they're so devout in their religion was so they could boast about it with their peers.

I didn't read the GP comment as "bragging" so much as wanting to be an existence proof that it's possible to live a modern life without (directly) burning any dinosaurs.

Re: Tesla Energy

#172

Post by GigabyteCoin »

daemin wrote: post #46

The maximum temperature will be an issue here in Australia. In a typical place where it will be mounted, i.e. the garage, the temperatures will readily get over 40, close to 50 during summer. I could see this also being a problem in places like Nevada and Arizona in the USA.

Store it underground.

In Canada, the temperatures dip well below -20C regularly, but not 10 feet underground they don't.

It takes months of sub-zero above-ground temperatures to even break the freezing mark and crack pipes that are 6 feet underground.

Re: Tesla Energy

#173

Post by M4v3R »

GigabyteCoin wrote: post #167
frakkingcylons wrote: post #5

A notable beta user: AWS will be running a 4.8 megawatt hour pilot program with Tesla's batteries in the us-west-1 AZ (Northern California). Hopefully this allows AWS and other hosting providers to use intermittent, renewable sources of energy more often. EDIT: I'm guessing AWS will be using a cluster of 48 power packs (100 kilowatt hours each).

This might be a reason to move your production environment out of us-west-1 for a few years. I wouldn't want any experiments going on around my main servers.

While that' one way you can look at it, another is that hopefully this region should now be less prone to power outage related downtimes. I wonder if they are an issue currently though.

Re: Tesla Energy

#175

Post by danhak »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #149
milesf wrote: post #33

Today is a big deal. Open sourcing the patents to build fully solar-powered electrical grids around the will be a paradigm shift in the power structures of the world. I expect from today onward there will be a full-scale attack from those who stand to lose because of the reduced dependency on oil. First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

Most of the power in the US comes from coal. Solar is 0.4%: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 What do you do with the batteries and the toxic materials inside when you're done with them (and how long do they last)? What do you do with all the toxic materials produced during mining, refining, and production of batteries and materials? How do you deal with these same issues as they affect solar panels, w…

> Most of the power in the US comes from coal

No, that's not true. Most power comes from sources other than coal. Yes, coal is the largest single source but it is < 50% and decreasing every year.

Re: Tesla Energy

#176

Post by hackerboos »

colinsidoti wrote: post #51

One thing that might go overlooked: Load shifting could, in theory, lower electric bills such that there's ROI without solar panels. --- Edit for why: On-demand power is expensive. "Spinning up" additional power during the day is more expensive than having certain types of power generation running all the time. In theory, pumping power into a battery at night during non-peak hours will cost less than consuming direct…

Economy 7 power is significantly cheaper in the UK than peak power. Charging overnight in the E7 period could save money long term depending on the lifetime of the battery.

Re: Tesla Energy

#178

Post by ekianjo »

Great, except that all these nice batteries are produced with extremely toxic processes, involve heavy metals, and consume a whole bunch of fossil fuel during their production. Hardly a good case for the environment when you factor everything together.

Re: Tesla Energy

#179

Post by rdl »

ekianjo wrote: post #178

Great, except that all these nice batteries are produced with extremely toxic processes, involve heavy metals, and consume a whole bunch of fossil fuel during their production. Hardly a good case for the environment when you factor everything together.

Lithium-Ion batteries aren't all sweetness and light, but it's not a particularly dirty process compared to Ni-Cd, and certainly you have to factor in benefits of reduced generation.

Re: Tesla Energy

#180

Post by Dylan16807 »

Johnythree wrote: post #163
kondro wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 is not enough. 4kW seems to be the maximum potential drain from the battery. That wouldn't power an oven… let alone anything else at the same time. 4kW inverters seem to be around the $1000 mark… but they don't seem to increase linearly (10kW inverter $4000 for example). Of course you could go totally off-grid, but the cost isn't going to be just $7k… it's likely to be at least $15-20k by the time you get everythin…

The key to successful Solar Living is an understanding of energy efficiency. Suggesting running an electric oven on solar is crazy talk.

So if your main priority is carbon what do you do, use a wood oven?
Post reply on HN