Tesla Wins Contract to Help Power the California Grid

Post by wallace_f » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 12:15 AM UTC

hx87 wrote: post #208

wallace_f wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a general sense is it not better for all people to be in he business of creating value than to quarrel over transferring it from one to another? I believe that if you care about human welfare, then it is obvious that it is.

Because distribution of value is important, and people believe that distribution of value is important. After all, there are limits to how much I can feel your well-being, and vice versa.

Post by nl » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 7:27 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #166

nl wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, in Aus we don't have 99% reliability. It's about 45 min every 2 years (whatever that works out to). That number was to explain the cost savings. In much of the world those cost saving are directly applicable. Most of the world's population doesn't have 99% reliable electricity, and so they build reliability at the edges with everything from batteries in phone towers, to batteries in lighting. It isn't at…

Rooftop solar is on average a $25,000 - $35,000 investment, and that's not even counting energy storage required to actually be off-grid. I don't think that only the rich should have reliable energy, and the poor should suffer brownouts to theoretically save some infrastructure costs. For countries who don't yet have a reliable electric grid, I think investing in providing quality / reliable electricity to their popu…

Post by SamPhillips » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 7:58 PM UTC

yessql wrote: post #180

zaroth wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you all the way up to affecting appliances. The key is the power shift should be virtually invisible to consumers. You don't turn off A/C, you just bump up the set point by 1 degree for that 15 minutes. The individual impact is minuscule, the aggregate impact is leveling out the peak. But you need everyone to be wired for this in order for a small change to add up to a big impact. Which isn't worth the cost…

Nest is planning this.

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 5:24 AM UTC

themartorana wrote: post #154

toomuchtodo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are now cheaper than peakers everywhere, not just CA. That's what I'm saying. Tesla's PowerPack installs (battery storage receives federal incentives, nat gas does not) will replace peakers, leaving them as stranded assets (the cannibalization I refer to). Edit: unepipe: Tesla packs perform the exact same role as a peaker plant: energy on demand. They are distributed, dispatchable loads and generators, avai…

Since they're not technically a "plant" - just storage - is there any advantage to be had to build in many smaller (say per-neighborhood) battery plants? Seems like they could act not only as peak providers, but also battery backup in the case of storms and whatnot. Plus it reduces a single-point of failure. I ask for I am uneducated in this area.