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

301–310 of 590 posts

Re: Tesla Energy

#301

Post by jhayward »

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…

1. As already posted, no, coal does not produce most of the electric power. It does dominate other sources though. The problem with your rejoinder is it assumes the past, not the future generation fleet. Musk's goal is to enable renewable generation, eliminating coal.

2. There are no particularly toxic materials in the batteries. Landfills accept discarded lithium batteries as regular waste. While lithium is not currently economical to recycle, by the time the industry is as large as the lead-acid battery market (a very toxic product chain) it will be just as easy to recycle lithium.

3. What toxic materials are you referring to? I'm not aware of anything that stands out, especially compared to coal mining, or tar sands production, etc. Lithium mining in particular is a very similar process to the one that produces table salt from salt flats. The biggest problem is the use of water in areas that are very water-poor, ie the Atacama desert.

4. Silicon is non-toxic and inert. There are some hazards associated with dust particles during production, but those are easily handled by proper manufacturing processes. Perhaps you were thinking of thin-film solar panels, which may use e.g. Cadmium? They're less common and seem unlikely to displace silicon PV in the near future.

Re: Tesla Energy

#302

Post by markvdb »

brc wrote: post #252
roel_v wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 is enough to power an entire home continuously, without thinking about energy use, even a large one with a home office with several people working in it + washing machine + oven + electrical stove at the same time . I have the data to prove it, too - 10 second interval power cons…

My air conditioner is 12 kW. No chance.

Not a chance without an investment in energy use optimisation and/or a change of habits. 12kW is a _lot_ of power.

Re: Tesla Energy

#303

Post by agmcleod »

psychometry wrote: post #291
watty wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it's immediately beneficial for just about everyone. I currently have a flat rate for kWh and no solar panel... and moving soon. It's not worth the $. In 6 months I'll be renting for a year, still not beneficial. Perhaps in a couple years I can purchase solar, a battery, and an energy system that can automate some demand shedding but we're talking about 1%ers here. In fact, I'd say it's only immediate…

As someone who rents an apartment with no garage and has a traditional gas-powered car, I can echo your sentiment and claim that Tesla has had zero impact on my life and that this announcement doesn't change that. I sincerely hope that Tesla's many innovative business efforts improve society in some major way, but right now they're still just a high-end automative company that's exploring the renewable energy space.…

Agreed. I'd love to have a living situation where a tesla or electric vehicle was realistic for me. They're just better pieces of engineering. But sadly due to renting an apartment, parking underground, and so forth, it's not a life style I can change to.

Re: Tesla Energy

#305

Post by tootie »

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…

Big cities are prone to brown outs on hot days in the summer due to air conditioners. The 2003 European heat wave killed thousands1. I could imagine mayors mandating use of this kind of technology in apartment buildings. Let them charge overnight to offset peak usage. You'd cover 100 or more people at a time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

Re: Tesla Energy

#306

Post by raverbashing »

kragen wrote: post #266
raverbashing wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it would be interesting to know if there's an advantage of connecting so many cells in series Most systems limit themselves to something like 48v as you said (I think 48v is the threshold of "being dangerous")

Higher voltage means lower current and thus lower voltage loss, and lower percentage losses for the same voltage loss, so you don’t need lots of copper.

Yes, but you're throwing it into an inverter, and it's not like you're carrying it too far. High voltages also present problems in itself (isolation, etc)

Now, on a second thought, maybe it's more efficient to do 400VDC to 120VAC/240VAC (don't know the exact values)

Re: Tesla Energy

#308

Post by Thiz »

I predict Venezuela will be the biggest importer of powerwalls to cope with daily outages.

Who knew oil-rich but impoverished countries would help fuel innovation.

Re: Tesla Energy

#309

Post by aquark »

ZoFreX wrote: post #261

This is a three-pronged stroke of genius: 1) Immediate benefits to just about anyone. If you have your own solar panels, you need this (or something like it). Even if you don't, you can benefit by drawing more power during cheaper off-peak times. 2) If lots of people get in on this, we'll have the storage capacity we need on the grid to be more dependent on renewable energy. Lack of storage capacity is one of the big…

re 1: part of the benefit of solar locally is that the rate you get for pushing power back into the grid is way in excess of what you have to pay to pull it out.

Whilst storing it for your own use later makes sense in theory, it doesn't work with the current economics

Re: Tesla Energy

#310

Post by wiremine »

What I'd love to see is a ROI calculator that:

* uses my zip code to figure out what my non-peak costs might be.

* allows me to optionally calculate solar energy capture (so I can see what impact having solar would be, given the average sunny days in my area)

* takes into account the wear and tear average cold weather would have on the lifetime of the batter and the payback period.

For example, I live in Michigan, and I don't know what my off peak cost is off the top of my head. I also have no idea how much sunshine I get, or how 10 degree lows for two months would impact the battery's ability to keep a charge.

Anybody know if something like this exists?

Post reply on HN