http://www.wired.com/2015/05/teslas-...ll-power-home/
For $3500 for the "large" option and just $3000 for the "smaller" option - This is pretty interesting. As a home renter, this isn't really for me. But, as I continue to try and plan for my future, it's certainly something that I am interested in for when I do take that next step to buying a home.
What do you guys think?
Dom Heffner (05-11-2015)
I like the idea but it's not something I'd want to be on board with for a few generations.
Go Gators!
My first question is, what is the total cost, including installation?
Given the fact that more than 50% of the cost of installation of residential PV is labor, I suspect that the installed cost of one of these batteries will be at least double, so $7,000 for 10 kWh. 10 kWh is about 1/3 of the power the average US home uses in a day. If I could get a 100-200 kWh battery installed for around $10,000, then we're at least talking. But I'd still want more than a 10 year warranty.
For a little context, if you spend $100 month on electricity for a decade, you've spent $12,000.
What I find more interesting than batteries is flywheels.
http://www.velkess.com/
They're offering 15 kWh of storage at $6,000. I doubt that includes installation, so you're probably looking at $10,000 or so, installed. That's more expensive than Tesla's solution and they haven't started selling any yet, so who knows how reliable they are in practice, or if they'll even work. However, flywheels are a type of device that could last for a century if it's well-constructed (there are working flywheels in some locomotives that are more than 100 years old). Batteries will degrade, no matter what. That's probably the biggest reason I find flywheels more interesting. Also, I question whether there is enough accessible lithium on the planet to serve as energy storage on a global scale. I've read that there is enough lithium to make EV batteries, but power grid energy storage is a whole different ball game.
RBA (05-01-2015)
I'm watching with interest. As the gigafactory comes online and starts pumping things out, the costs will come down. As prices come down, it'll make more sense to start installing systems like this in more places. Combine this with an electric car with sufficient range and reasonable cost and you get to a system that makes quite a compelling case.
I think we're probably 5-10 years off from the real snowballing market growth, but there's such a huge structural advantage to the solar/battery combo as the power source for so much of our energy that it's only a matter of time.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
I think this idea is going to be huge. Store energy at night when it's cheap and use it during the day when it's not. Price is not too bad. Great when tied to solar, but doesn't need to be. I think this idea will explode. Musk is our generation's Edison. Appreciate being able to observe it folks.....
Last edited by JaxRed; 05-02-2015 at 02:04 PM.
Bud Selig: "I'm the worst commissioner ever"
Rob Manfred: "Hold my beer"
https://redsintelligence.com/smforum/index.php
Musk is our generations Tesla. Don't insult him with that silly Edison comparison. #teslaforeveredisonneverOriginally Posted by JaxRed
The Operator (05-12-2015)
I'd say he's more like George Westinghouse, the guy who funded Tesla's alternating current, if anything. It's not like he's actually inventing anything the way Tesla did. Come to think of it, for all the hype Musk gets, you have to ask, where are actual results? His car company netted something like 10,000 sales worldwide last year (compared to 10 million for the GMs or Toyotas of the world) despite getting major subsidies, and all I ever read about SpaceX is one failed launch/landing after the next. His major accomplishment to this point seems to be hooking up with Thiel (also overhyped) who both got lucky enough to be eBay's fallback option when their payment system collapsed. Not exactly revolutionary. Still, he's got some big ideas....kinda like Tesla with the whole free energy and broadcast power...those were big ideas, too.
Musk is certainly an idea man. He's taken those ideas and made them happen though.
Their battery technology is the best around.
SpaceX seems to be doing just fine.
Musk made $20+M before paypal was even thought of on his radar.
Tesla has about 75,000 cars on the road. That really isn't much, especially compared to GM/Toyota.... but how many pure electric cars do those guys have on the road? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but I'd bet it's not nearly as large as the 10M number thrown out there.
SpaceX's launches have all been failures?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Launch_history
As far as I'm aware, they've never lost a payload. They haven't mastered the return trip landing, but they're close. I wouldn't call those failures, but you're free to judge them however you want. Perhaps you could lend them your expertise.
Musk is a glorified Jeff Bezos. Comparing him to the greats from prior generations is a little bit off. I think Musk has become a cult figure, when he speaks people listen, Tesla stock goes crazy, but little happens. As great as Tesla is, the company still has negative earnings per share. Doesn't he have to create a sustainable business first?
Tesla is cool, its chic, he took an idea that was around it turned in into something people want to drive. It isn't the Chevy Volt that appealed to wealthy eco-friendly people, it appeals to the wealthy in general. In order to become a transcendent figure in history you have to create a lasting legacy. A company that has failed to turn a profit isn't exactly a lasting legacy kind of thing, is it?
SpaceX is profitable. And if you're going to rip SpaceX for generating most of its revenue with government contracts, then you should also levy that criticism at companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman.
As for Tesla, I'll hold off judgment until the Model III comes out. Its targeted price point is $35k. It's not cheap, but it's not a luxury vehicle either. If that takes off, it could make Tesla profitable.
That said, I wonder if Tesla could be profitable right now if it wasn't investing so much money into recharging infrastructure. Manufacturers of gasoline vehicles don't have to build gas stations to get people to buy their cars. If they did, would they be profitable? I think that's a valid question, and would make this more of an apples to apples comparison.
The problem with electric vehicles, in general, are that they require the consumer to adapt their life to fit the product v. building a product that fits the life of the consumer.
Also, the group of people most likely to be interested in the product (young, urban-dwelling professionals) are also the group of people least likely to own a home with a garage to charge the car in at night.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
I'm not sure that's true (the part about the most interested group) and that will change over time, anyway.
Regardless, Tesla doesn't need to sell as many vehicles as GM to be profitable.
i don't care much about profits. I care about ideas that make the world better. Musk is doing that.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote