Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hopefully, we are all set to "waste money" on minimising Anthropogenic
Global Warming! Households that are installing battery backed solar or
wind are doing their best to lower their own carbon footprint.
Stanford uni has a very long history of producing papers on all sorts ofOn 22/05/2015 12:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations) for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
Sylvia.
**A couple of points and questions:
* How do you arrive at 28c/kWh? Please show your calculations.
* A 7kWh model is way too small for most households, except for
emergency situations.
* Li-Ion batteries are close to being wiped out by new developments in
aluminium battery technology. Such technology is likely to be:
* Significantly cheaper.
* Capable of many more charge/discharge cycles.
* Much safer.
* Somewhat more energy dense.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/aluminum-ion-battery-033115.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7547/full/nature14340.html
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
Hopefully, we are all set to "waste money" on minimising Anthropogenic
Global Warming! Households that are installing battery backed solar or
wind are doing their best to lower their own carbon footprint.
On 22/5/2015 2:24 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 22/05/2015 12:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations) for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
Sylvia.
**A couple of points and questions:
* How do you arrive at 28c/kWh? Please show your calculations.
* A 7kWh model is way too small for most households, except for
emergency situations.
* Li-Ion batteries are close to being wiped out by new developments in
aluminium battery technology. Such technology is likely to be:
* Significantly cheaper.
* Capable of many more charge/discharge cycles.
* Much safer.
* Somewhat more energy dense.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/aluminum-ion-battery-033115.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7547/full/nature14340.html
Stanford uni has a very long history of producing papers on all sorts of
wonderful stuff which never make it to commercial production.
The fact that people have been working on Al batteries for about 20
years already with no success tells me it might be difficult.
My take on the Tesla announcement is that Elon Musk needs an outlet for
the batteries he is using for electric cars, now that sales for those
are way below the original forecasts.
Certainly a 7KWh power pack is nowhere near enough for anything other
than emergency supply for a domestic house. Work out the capacity you
need for say 3-4 days without useful sunshine. Here in sunny Queensland
we have that regularly 2-3 times a year. No possible way you can go
off-grid.
And yes, I have a solar array, and make a good profit selling the excess
power back to the grid, but there is no way I could justify batteries
and go off grid.
On Sun, 24 May 2015 20:19:58 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 24/05/2015 7:51 PM, news13 wrote:
Are you aware of a lead acid deep cycle battery whose manufacturer
states that it will last in excess of 3600 cycles at 50% discharge?
If I wanted long -life, I'd be planning on 10-20% discharge per day for
a DCLA. Only 3600 cycles should be easily achieved for wet under those
conditions.
But now you need more batteries, which pushes the price up.
Rule one, if you see price as the limitation, then you'd better study
study investments 101 again and redo your figures.
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
Hopefully, we are all set to "waste money" on minimising Anthropogenic
Global Warming! Households that are installing battery backed solar or
wind are doing their best to lower their own carbon footprint.
If you doubt that AGW is a problem then any waste of money on
batteries is insignificant compared to the government's "waste of
money" Direct Action Plan and Renewable Energy Targets.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Once again, you assume that the "true cost" does not include the cost
of AGW. If the aim is to minimise carbon emissions then it is
inevitable that we will pay more for electricity. The aim should be to
regard carbon emissions as a major cost and to tailor the supply to
maximise the use of renewables.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations)
That must change. Base _load_ is often confused with the cheapest
_supply_. Coal and gas should only be used if renewables cannot meet
the current load.
for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
On 25/05/2015 12:41 PM, news13 wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 20:19:58 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
But now you need more batteries, which pushes the price up.
Rule one, if you see price as the limitation, then you'd better study
study investments 101 again and redo your figures.
That sounds like "capital cost isn't important, because it's incurred
only once."
Any money spent on batteries is money that cannot be placed on deposit
to earn interest, so the price does matter.
On 26/05/2015 12:30 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 25/05/2015 12:30 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
Hopefully, we are all set to "waste money" on minimising Anthropogenic
Global Warming! Households that are installing battery backed solar or
wind are doing their best to lower their own carbon footprint.
If you doubt that AGW is a problem then any waste of money on
batteries is insignificant compared to the government's "waste of
money" Direct Action Plan and Renewable Energy Targets.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Once again, you assume that the "true cost" does not include the cost
of AGW. If the aim is to minimise carbon emissions then it is
inevitable that we will pay more for electricity. The aim should be to
regard carbon emissions as a major cost and to tailor the supply to
maximise the use of renewables.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations)
That must change. Base _load_ is often confused with the cheapest
_supply_. Coal and gas should only be used if renewables cannot meet
the current load.
for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
This is a thread about economics, not the environment, but if you want
people to adjust their behaviour so as to reduce their impact on the
environment, then you will have to get an adjustment to the pricing
signals. Most people cannot afford to put their environmental concerns
ahead of their bank balance.
You started a thread on the topic of wasting money on batteries. Most
people cannot afford to buy the batteries. For those that can, the
target market is those that will buy them in the hope of lowering
their carbon footprint. I am reasonable confident that the number of
geeks willing to buy them based on saving money by time shifting their
electricity consumption is very close to one.
I don't think that's the target market at all. The target market is
anyone who can be persuaded to buy one, and that includes those people
who can be wrongly convinced that by this approach they can reduce their
overall power cost. I rather suspect that the latter will constitute the
lion's share of the market.
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 26/05/2015 12:30 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 25/05/2015 12:30 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
Hopefully, we are all set to "waste money" on minimising Anthropogenic
Global Warming! Households that are installing battery backed solar or
wind are doing their best to lower their own carbon footprint.
If you doubt that AGW is a problem then any waste of money on
batteries is insignificant compared to the government's "waste of
money" Direct Action Plan and Renewable Energy Targets.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Once again, you assume that the "true cost" does not include the cost
of AGW. If the aim is to minimise carbon emissions then it is
inevitable that we will pay more for electricity. The aim should be to
regard carbon emissions as a major cost and to tailor the supply to
maximise the use of renewables.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations)
That must change. Base _load_ is often confused with the cheapest
_supply_. Coal and gas should only be used if renewables cannot meet
the current load.
for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
This is a thread about economics, not the environment, but if you want
people to adjust their behaviour so as to reduce their impact on the
environment, then you will have to get an adjustment to the pricing
signals. Most people cannot afford to put their environmental concerns
ahead of their bank balance.
You started a thread on the topic of wasting money on batteries. Most
people cannot afford to buy the batteries. For those that can, the
target market is those that will buy them in the hope of lowering
their carbon footprint. I am reasonable confident that the number of
geeks willing to buy them based on saving money by time shifting their
electricity consumption is very close to one.
I don't think that's the target market at all. The target market is
anyone who can be persuaded to buy one, and that includes those people
who can be wrongly convinced that by this approach they can reduce their
overall power cost. I rather suspect that the latter will constitute the
lion's share of the market.
That is because you are the one!I don't believe that anybody else
would contemplate spending $5500 to store some off peak electricity
from the grid for use in peak periods.
On 26/05/2015 6:25 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 26/05/2015 12:30 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 25/05/2015 12:30 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
Hopefully, we are all set to "waste money" on minimising Anthropogenic
Global Warming! Households that are installing battery backed solar or
wind are doing their best to lower their own carbon footprint.
If you doubt that AGW is a problem then any waste of money on
batteries is insignificant compared to the government's "waste of
money" Direct Action Plan and Renewable Energy Targets.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Once again, you assume that the "true cost" does not include the cost
of AGW. If the aim is to minimise carbon emissions then it is
inevitable that we will pay more for electricity. The aim should be to
regard carbon emissions as a major cost and to tailor the supply to
maximise the use of renewables.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations)
That must change. Base _load_ is often confused with the cheapest
_supply_. Coal and gas should only be used if renewables cannot meet
the current load.
for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
This is a thread about economics, not the environment, but if you want
people to adjust their behaviour so as to reduce their impact on the
environment, then you will have to get an adjustment to the pricing
signals. Most people cannot afford to put their environmental concerns
ahead of their bank balance.
You started a thread on the topic of wasting money on batteries. Most
people cannot afford to buy the batteries. For those that can, the
target market is those that will buy them in the hope of lowering
their carbon footprint. I am reasonable confident that the number of
geeks willing to buy them based on saving money by time shifting their
electricity consumption is very close to one.
I don't think that's the target market at all. The target market is
anyone who can be persuaded to buy one, and that includes those people
who can be wrongly convinced that by this approach they can reduce their
overall power cost. I rather suspect that the latter will constitute the
lion's share of the market.
That is because you are the one!I don't believe that anybody else
would contemplate spending $5500 to store some off peak electricity
from the grid for use in peak periods.
It it saved money, why not?
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 26/05/2015 6:25 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 26/05/2015 12:30 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 25/05/2015 12:30 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
Hopefully, we are all set to "waste money" on minimising Anthropogenic
Global Warming! Households that are installing battery backed solar or
wind are doing their best to lower their own carbon footprint.
If you doubt that AGW is a problem then any waste of money on
batteries is insignificant compared to the government's "waste of
money" Direct Action Plan and Renewable Energy Targets.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Once again, you assume that the "true cost" does not include the cost
of AGW. If the aim is to minimise carbon emissions then it is
inevitable that we will pay more for electricity. The aim should be to
regard carbon emissions as a major cost and to tailor the supply to
maximise the use of renewables.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations)
That must change. Base _load_ is often confused with the cheapest
_supply_. Coal and gas should only be used if renewables cannot meet
the current load.
for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
This is a thread about economics, not the environment, but if you want
people to adjust their behaviour so as to reduce their impact on the
environment, then you will have to get an adjustment to the pricing
signals. Most people cannot afford to put their environmental concerns
ahead of their bank balance.
You started a thread on the topic of wasting money on batteries. Most
people cannot afford to buy the batteries. For those that can, the
target market is those that will buy them in the hope of lowering
their carbon footprint. I am reasonable confident that the number of
geeks willing to buy them based on saving money by time shifting their
electricity consumption is very close to one.
I don't think that's the target market at all. The target market is
anyone who can be persuaded to buy one, and that includes those people
who can be wrongly convinced that by this approach they can reduce their
overall power cost. I rather suspect that the latter will constitute the
lion's share of the market.
That is because you are the one!I don't believe that anybody else
would contemplate spending $5500 to store some off peak electricity
from the grid for use in peak periods.
It it saved money, why not?
No reason at all. I was commenting on the fact that although such
extreme geekiness is endearing it is far too rare to make a market for
the battery. That is why I'm reasonably confident the target market is
those that already have solar and wish to further reduce their carbon
footprint with battery backup.
However, I haven't done the sums, so I don't know whether it would.
That's another reason why the target market is not those who wish to
save money. The sums depend on some estimates of electricity pricing
over the life of the battery and that is unpredictable. As you rightly
point out, widespread use of the battery would affect electricity
prices.
My only point of disagreement is your subject line. If the buyers do
lower their carbon footprint it is not a waste of money.
. . .
If price follows scarcity, then the time the price is high will be
precisely when there is little or no solar power available.
The last time I looked here in WestOz, you couldn't grid tie with a
system with storage (batteries). Otherwise everybody would load up
batteries on off-peak and feed them back into the grid at peak rates.
Money for jam.
If it ever became genuinely economic, the power companies would start
doing it, and economies of scale for the companies would mean that the
home battery owner couldn't compete.
Hmm,
The chances of having a high feed-in price at the exact time you have
some power to feed in sound pretty low to me.
If price follows scarcity, then the time the price is high will be
precisely when there is little or no solar power available.
On Tue, 26 May 2015 07:34:48 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adrian@qq.vv.net
wrote:
Hmm,
The chances of having a high feed-in price at the exact time you have
some power to feed in sound pretty low to me.
If price follows scarcity, then the time the price is high will be
precisely when there is little or no solar power available.
The last time I looked here in WestOz, you couldn't grid tie with a
system with storage (batteries). Otherwise everybody would load up
batteries on off-peak and feed them back into the grid at peak rates.
Money for jam.
I supposed the real test will be the take up by the whacky bacca
brigade to try and hide the huge electricity bill.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations) for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
Sylvia.
On 22/05/2015 12:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transform-electricity-industry/6488230
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/powerwall
At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year
life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per
kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter
(not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's
also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that
they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they
won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.
The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It
isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is
required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might
have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost
per kWh.
The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to
the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on
the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when
it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay
something closer to the true cost of using it that way.
Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on
overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations) for
use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would
otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.
Sylvia.
**I spoke with my next door neighbour about these batteries yesterday.
He is an accountant. As such, he views most things through the eyes of
an accountant (and computer programmer). He has a Solar array on his
roof and, therefore, has a 'smart' metering system on his home. He was
telling me that present charges for peak power is around $0.50/kWh. His
idea is to charge the battery with his PV array, or when power is cheap,
so he can use energy from the battery when power is expensive.
Don't forget: Electricity is not likely to get cheaper in the future.