The future of Nuclear / Tesla home battery
Discussion
An article in Forbes raises some interesting points subsequent to Tesla's announcement - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/05/01...
The FT takes a different view.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/74483504-f010-11e4-ab73-...
Not sure if it's paywalled as I have a subscription.
Their loss is predicted to go from 31 cents per share to 36 cents per share this year. The $5bn factory producing lithium-ion batteries isn't due to come on stream until 2017 and there are other battery technologies that may make them old hat by then. It's not all as rosy as the press releases make out it seems. Lots of projections and promises but they don't butter any parsnips. But who knows?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/74483504-f010-11e4-ab73-...
Not sure if it's paywalled as I have a subscription.
Their loss is predicted to go from 31 cents per share to 36 cents per share this year. The $5bn factory producing lithium-ion batteries isn't due to come on stream until 2017 and there are other battery technologies that may make them old hat by then. It's not all as rosy as the press releases make out it seems. Lots of projections and promises but they don't butter any parsnips. But who knows?
I haven't seen any data to suggest that even with suitable storage capability we can entirely replace fossil fueled generation with renewable based generation?
Power density. A single coal fired powerstation can typically output 3,000MW, so to replace that with renewables, which are generally "Low power" devices, is not a matter simply of direct replacement.
Power density. A single coal fired powerstation can typically output 3,000MW, so to replace that with renewables, which are generally "Low power" devices, is not a matter simply of direct replacement.
Personally I think these fit in and help make a case for renewable solutions (I think if you look at it science/factual p.o.v. benefits/cost of renewables are pretty marginal due partly from the lack to be able to store energy created).
You still need something to cover base load where Nuclear is a very good fit, but as this technology develops you could conceivably cut down on the number of fossil based power plants needed, (certainly the more polluting ones) and the reliance on external energy supplies - which leads on to a second point (albeit personal first hand) - a mate had solar panels fitted earlier this year to his home and he's actually had a couple of days where the panels almost supplied enough energy in total to run his house for a day (in England). In sunnier climes this design of home storage would make even more sense.
So scaling that up, you could conceivably move towards even less reliance on having 'reactionary' oil/gas based power plants supply peak demand, as the home battery would smooth out that demand required from the grid, and you would just need something to cover base load for effectively re-charging the batteries when sun/solar is not available, (and obviously a couple of instant power sources for when people go to put a cuppa on during England world football matches).
The main issue with this technology is pretty obvious - how is the government going to tax people for effectively moving off-grid?
You still need something to cover base load where Nuclear is a very good fit, but as this technology develops you could conceivably cut down on the number of fossil based power plants needed, (certainly the more polluting ones) and the reliance on external energy supplies - which leads on to a second point (albeit personal first hand) - a mate had solar panels fitted earlier this year to his home and he's actually had a couple of days where the panels almost supplied enough energy in total to run his house for a day (in England). In sunnier climes this design of home storage would make even more sense.
So scaling that up, you could conceivably move towards even less reliance on having 'reactionary' oil/gas based power plants supply peak demand, as the home battery would smooth out that demand required from the grid, and you would just need something to cover base load for effectively re-charging the batteries when sun/solar is not available, (and obviously a couple of instant power sources for when people go to put a cuppa on during England world football matches).
The main issue with this technology is pretty obvious - how is the government going to tax people for effectively moving off-grid?
The issue for me is the ever increasing complexity (and hence cost, or at least potential cost) of our home environment. For the last 40,000 years of human existence, a "home" has basically been a roof over our heads, be that a cave, a hut, or bricks and mortar. But now, increasingly our home is a total environment. And up til now, large mutli-national companies where responsible for the installation, maintenance and specification of our energy infrastructure. But, if all our homes have solar panels and battery storage, the potential for low earning householders to suffer a financially catastrophic failure rears it's head! Right now, if you lights go out, you ring the energy supplier who mobilises an expensive series of capabilities to repair that supply. But if it's your own battery than has failed (or inverter, solar panel/turbine etc) then the householder will bare that cost.
I'd imagine soon you'll be able to insure yourself against that very scenario!
I'd imagine soon you'll be able to insure yourself against that very scenario!
It's possible to live on a vastly reduced power consumption footprint. We waste vast amounts of energy for want of good quality, well designed housing, lighting and appliances. Not to mention the 15% or so lost to transmission over the grid. Distributed micro generation with waste heat recovery, even at lower thermal efficiency could yield significant power savings in its own right, before adding the solar PV.
It's not rocket science, but inertia and vested interests (power generation, housing construction and banking industries amongst others) are the limiting factors, not technology.
It's not rocket science, but inertia and vested interests (power generation, housing construction and banking industries amongst others) are the limiting factors, not technology.
AER said:
It's possible to live on a vastly reduced power consumption footprint. We waste vast amounts of energy for want of good quality, well designed housing, lighting and appliances. Not to mention the 15% or so lost to transmission over the grid. Distributed micro generation with waste heat recovery, even at lower thermal efficiency could yield significant power savings in its own right, before adding the solar PV.
It's not rocket science, but inertia and vested interests (power generation, housing construction and banking industries amongst others) are the limiting factors, not technology.
A good point - and a lot of truth in "Producing our way out of the problem with renewables is half the solution. Conserving our way out is the other half.”It's not rocket science, but inertia and vested interests (power generation, housing construction and banking industries amongst others) are the limiting factors, not technology.
- regarding vested interests, I think this would be a significant hurdle in the USA, with the prevalent monopolies and lobby groups. Hell the cable companies sue local governments to prevent them installing their own internet infrastructure. Can't see energy companies allowing individuals to become semi self-sufficient with regards energy needs...
- regarding multinational companies providing installation/support etc, with this (or some similar future) solution, I could see the battery/panels etc becoming just another appliance. Saying that the grid trickle/top up feed I can see becoming astronmically expensive for those with out their own generated power source
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff