Tesla Plans To Disconnect 'Almost All' Superchargers From the Grid In Favor of Solar and Battery Power (electrek.co) 230
Only half a dozen Supercharger stations or so out of the over 800 stations have solar arrays and batteries, but that may be about to change. Elon Musk said Tesla plans to deploy more battery and solar systems with the upcoming "Version 3" of the Supercharger, adding that "almost all Superchargers will disconnect from the electricity grid." Electrek reports: Previously, Musk said that Tesla's new Powerpack and solar arrays will power some Supercharger stations in sunny regions to go off-grid -- adding that "the grid won't be needed for moderate use Superchargers in non-snowy regions." While it makes sense to add solar arrays and battery packs, it's not clear why there would be a need to completely disconnect from the grid, which is often still useful -- especially if net metering is available. Even in regions where coal dominates electricity generation, electric cars are still more efficient than some of the most efficient gas-powered cars. Therefore, the argument could have ended here, but Musk apparently wants to take Tesla's Supercharger network off-grid as part of the company's mission to accelerate the advent of sustainable energy. Depending on the size and popularity of a Supercharger station, which generally varies from 6 partly used stalls to 20 stalls in almost constant use, Tesla would need some significantly large solar arrays at some stations -- almost football field in size. Unless there are some impressive advancements in efficiency, it's not clear how they would make it happen.
This is probably for the haterz (Score:5, Insightful)
There are so many, for lack of a better word, "Haters" who think that we can't have nice things and all technology must be destroyed if we are going to save the earth. By disconnecting from the grid Musk wants to make a point: This technology is sustainable. There are no outside inputs that need to go into it to make it work once it's setup. Somebody will say that the batteries or the cells will wear out eventually, but if it lasts for more than 20 years, what are they really going to say then? That's the point he wants to make, that there is hope for the future, we're not all going to die, there is another way to save the world besides deindustrialization and the massive drop in standards of living and population that would have to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a camper that is normally parked behind my house. For two years now it has not been plugged into the grid once. I have modest solar capability on it, and have switched all the lighting over to LED, and have low-power DC electronics as much as possible (a 12V TV, a Nintendo Wii - which runs off 12V DC FYI, switched out the furnace for non-electric gas heater, etc). I know it is silly, but there's something about "knowing" that everything is functional and is totally stand-alone and self sufficient in
Re:This is probably for the haterz (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that this is not feasible with current technology going forward, not unless you fill up just a handful of cars per day.
I did a study recently for an company looking at the capability of converting a few petrol stations to fast chargers. We took some simple assumptions: Take the average city edge fuel station (not country station, and not a heavily loaded inner city one). Assume 5% of the amount of cars end up wanting to charge up. Assume out of those that 40% will be charging during peak travel time and 10% at night time (that last bit works in our favour here). And a nastier one: Assume that anyone charging will be doing a 75% charge (incapable of charging at home, or doing a long distance route). What we came up with:
a) 10MVA grid connection (24x larger than the largest petrol station) without storage.
b) 1.5MVA grid connection + local battery storage. The local battery storage in this case ended up being grid scale sized storage and looking at suppliers of vanadium redox batteries we were looking at a 5 shipping container batteryfarm at every servo.
c) Local microturbine system + battery storage (rejected because the idea of people visibly seeing that their green cars are being filled by burning hydrocarbons was a mental hurdle that would affect people using the service).
Personally I like Elon Musk's idea of swapping batteries better. But this to me looks like little more than marketing. It is something that is feasible now but ONLY now. It won't work going forward without a massive leap in battery performance. If you're filling up a handful of cars a day, no problem providing it's sunny. If Tesla is successful in making the world switch to electric cars, it will fail in keeping it's service stations off the grid.
Rule of thumb: If you need a MV or HV grid connection, chances are you're not going off the grid with solar. Tesla should focus on houses, commercial properties, schools, etc. Don't distract from where they can make a real difference in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
The plan likely involves solar roof tiles on nearby buildings, and maybe some small solar farms.
Brilliant business move. Sell the cars and the "fuel" they need.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that "most" Superchargers aren't heavily used. Those are going to be the ones that get a field of solar panels next to them, not the 20-stall beauties that average 60% utilization over 24 hours.
From a PR standpoint, being able to say that "80% of our Superchargers are off-the-grid" is a beautiful thing; one can quietly ignore that the other 20% are consuming 80% of the kwh being dispensed.
"in non-snowy regions" (Score:2)
Someone in California has forgotten that it can rain in non-snowy regions. It can even be heavily clouded when it doesn't rain.
Re: (Score:2)
It rained 70 inches this year here in California. We're well aware of rain. Clouds and rain do not block all light or even most of it. Solar panels do in fact generate energy while it's raining. Not quite as much as on a sunny day, but that just means you need a few more of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Clouds and rain do not block all light or even most of it. Solar panels do in fact generate energy while it's raining.
You'll have to prove to me that they generate electricity when the clouds are so dark that street lights come on in the middle of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rain doesn't affect solar output at all. Actually it's good for panels, it washes the dust and bird-crap off.
The clouds, however, so result in power output dropping. You still get some power in cloudy weather, but a fraction of what you'd get from clear skies.
Elon will doom us all! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you people see what happening here?! Elon is going to suck up all the sunlight with his solar panels and we'll have to pay him for electricity to turn on LED light bulbs! With no sunlight, all the plants will die and we'll have to pay him for electricity for our oxygen scrubbers! Someone has to stop this mad man! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the whole reason Musk started SpaceX is so he can launch a mission to capture and retrieve the sun for his own solar energy purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, the whole reason Musk started SpaceX is so he can launch a mission to capture and retrieve the sun for his own solar energy purposes.
Oh dear. If Musk brings the sun back to Earth, won't that increase global warming?
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are kidding but in case anyone is wondering, solar panels actually lower albedo because their backs are white, and most of the energy that strikes them which is not converted into electricity is reradiated as IR, and mostly in the skyward direction. Of course, then it tends to run into GHGs, but that would happen no matter what it was being reradiated from.
Re: (Score:2)
solar panels actually lower albedo because their backs are white, and most of the energy that strikes them which is not converted into electricity is reradiated as IR, and mostly in the skyward direction. Of course, then it tends to run into GHGs, but that would happen no matter what it was being reradiated from.
That's actually a problem if the panels absorb and re-radiate more energy in IR form than the surface they are covering, which is fairly likely given their color.
He said "over time" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As in, over time, batteries will become so awesome that we won't need to be connected to the grid anymore. He doesn't say it's happening today.
Is he saying that overtime Tesla will be a failure and people won't charge their cars?
Prediction: Batteries will get better over the next 10 years. Maybe 2 fold or 4 fold.
Other prediction: The number of electric cars filling up at charging stations will increase an order of magnitude, and due to the aforementioned battery improvements will draw an even higher load.
If Tesla succeeds at putting their superchargers off the grid, they likely failed at selling cars.
Depends on net metering (Score:2)
and that is going away. My utility no longer does net metering. They pay me about 10c/kwh generated and in summer I pay them about 15c/kwh for every kwh I consume. Yeah, you guessed it, I pay a nickel per kwh my panels produce and I consume. Winter I am in a lower price tier so my consumption price drops to about 10c/kwh so it is basically net metering. But they keep dropping the price they pay me per kwh and raising the price I pay them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly reasonable for them to charge more than they pay. They have transmission lines, maintenance personnel, and other basic costs to cover. There's no reason they should transport energy you generate to another customer, and pay/charge the same on both sides. And, as there's more private energy sources connecting to the grid, that price difference will increase, since they'll be making less from power generati
Re: (Score:2)
if a power company can't beat a small scale operation then it doesn't deserve to be in business. if we can all produce electricity for 10c/kwh then why have power companies at all. setup a solar panel at every house and business if individually we're really as efficient as the price tiers of the power company implies. Which is kind of what Elon Musk is realizing.
Re: (Score:2)
if we can all produce electricity for 10c/kwh then why have power companies at all.
I imagine you're still going to want access to power at night, and on cloudy/rainy days... so until a week's worth of battery-backup is affordable, you're still going to want a grid-tie in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine you're still going to want access to power at night, and on cloudy/rainy days... so until a week's worth of battery-backup is affordable, you're still going to want a grid-tie in most cases.
I don't think I would, since I'd have a Tesla battery. Which is already affordable.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoosh. It's not production cost, it's distribution. If you want to try to compete with a power company at distribution, go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh. It's not production cost, it's distribution. If you want to try to compete with a power company at distribution, go for it.
Woosh. We can already distribute power by truck, as solar panels and battery packs. The distribution technique used for the last 100 years has served us well, but it's not necessarily the only possible solution to the problem of getting power to every home and business.
Re: (Score:2)
Export power back to the grid, pay some extra tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Home storage is great, but it still makes sense to export your excess. I would rather import my neighbors' electricity when my dryer and water heater and A/C are all running, and then export some when the dryer and water heater shit off, for them to use. Then, we could also all have home storage, but it wouldn't need to be anywhere near as large as needed if going fully off the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
foolish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Compare that to a house which is much more of a low steady draw. In order to guarantee 365 days of off grid capability for a house, Solar city would have to massively overbuild to account for that one crazy energy usage day.
Re: (Score:2)
You would think that utilities would charge more for it, but they don't. The reason is that malls and restaurants are predictable in their electricity needs.
And to be fair, Tesla NEEDS to remain connected to the grid. If something like Yellowstone blows, then the midwest and eastern seaboard
"it's not clear how they would make it happen." (Score:2)
How to make it happen (Score:2)
Depending on the size and popularity of a Supercharger station, which generally varies from 6 partly used stalls to 20 stalls in almost constant use, Tesla would need some significantly large solar arrays at some stations -- almost football field in size. Unless there are some impressive advancements in efficiency, it's not clear how they would make it happen.
Simple, change the business so the 20 stall location isn't so busy. You can close the stalls, or you can charge a surge price based on demand for stalls.
Did someone do the math on this first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume 160 W/m^2 commercial panels. PV solar capacity factor in the desert Southwest is about 0.185. That is, over a year, a 100 Watt panel will produce the equivalent of a constant 18.5 Watts. So the 160 W/m^2 panels will produce 160 Watts * 0.185 = 29.6 Watts average over 24 hours, or 0.7104 kWh / m^2 in 24 hours.
This means to supercharge a single Telsa S requires 53.125 kWh / 0.7104 kWh/m^2 = 74.78 m^2 of solar panels.
Oh wait, you're gonna store that solar energy in a battery first? That's going to introduce more charging and discharge losses. If you figure 90% for both, that's 74.78 m^2 / (0.9*0.9) = 92.32 m^2 of solar panels needed for every car you want to supercharge that day.
How busy is a Supercharger station? Summary says 6-20 stalls per station, so say 13 average. Figure they're half occupied during day hours, empty at night. At 30 minutes to charge, that's 2 per hour per bay, or (6.5 bays occupied)*(2 vehicles per bay per hour)*(12 hours) = 156 vehicles charged per day.
So to generate enough electricity to supercharge those 156 vehicles requires (156 vehicles)*(92.32 m^2/vehicle) = 14,401 m^2 of solar panels per Supercharger station. Or approx 120m x 120m of solar panels. Or put another way, the average home solar installation is about 30 m^2. So each Supercharger station would need as many panels as 480 homes.
Re:Did someone do the math on this first? (Score:4, Informative)
That's roughly what I came up with. But I don't have a lot of faith in my math. And we're being rather generous I think. Remember that this needs to work on a cloudy week near the Winter Solstice with short days and low sun angles.
Not that the concept is necessarily unworkable. But maybe we need 2067 technology and costs not 2017 technology.and costs, for it to work.well.
Re: (Score:3)
Figure they're half occupied during day hours, empty at night.
Bad assumption. We did a similar study using real petrol station numbers. Consider your distribution to be lumped in a set of a few hours before and after work. During most of the day it will be reasonably quiet, and there WILL be a few cars at night.
That makes your scenario even worse. The storage size we came up with was incredible and we were looking at it to reduce the grid connection without even attempting to go fully green and found it infeasible.
Re: (Score:2)
In your study, did you take into account that for petrol cars ALL filling up happens at petrol stations, but for EVs most filling up happens at home? In other words, you have to remove all petrol filling used for daily commutes from the numbers, and only count he petrol filling used for long-distance driving.
This will also drastically change that pattern where the distribution is lumped in a set of a few hours before and after work, since those people will just charge their EV at home or at work, not at a s
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably right that much/most vehicle charging will be done at home or maybe even at work. But I think that just means that we don't need drive up charging stations on every second street corner. Doesn't affect the sizing of individual charging stations?
Re: (Score:3)
but for EVs most filling up happens at home
Yes we did, but it didn't change much. The result was a total of less cars but the distribution is still highly dependent on convenience and timing. I.e. Less people already fill up on the way to work unless they absolutely have to than on the way home, unless they a travelling long distances. This means that the afternoon peak is larger than the morning peak and this isn't going to change with EVs.
The study we did also took into account that emerging models from Porche and BMW won't be able to be charged a
Re: (Score:2)
"That makes your scenario even worse. The storage size we came up with was incredible and we were looking at it to reduce the grid connection without even attempting to go fully green and found it infeasible."
That brings up an interesting question. How much storage is needed to back up a given amount of non-dispatchable storage like wind and solar? The short answer seems to be everywhere and always an infinite amount. That would seem to make planning a bit difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Yay, someone actually does the numbers! Thanks! :)
How large (in area) is such a supercharger station in general? Would it be feasible to put the panels above the station? That would also give some nice shade for the charging cars below the panels.
Re: (Score:2)
"Would it be feasible to put the panels above the station? "
That's what the artistic conception in the article shows.
My best guess. A typical sedan (e.g. a Toyota Camry) is a bit less than 5m long and 2m wide = 10 square meters.. If we assume that there's about twice that much space for each stall, that's 20 square meters of panel per charging station. Theoretically, there's about 1kwh per square meter available at high noon in the tropics, but there are a zillion inefficiencies, so lets assume 6 hours o
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, 120x120m isn't much for a small solar farm or a number of nearby buildings and the cover over the chargers themselves. It would allow superchargers away from grid ties too.
Re: (Score:2)
Your last assumption is out, you don't need enough panels to charge all 156 vehicles, you need enough to power the 6-20 stalls at the same time while there are vehicles present. When there are stalls open, the same panels can recharge the local battery banks for when there is no sun.
I can't find a decent voltage/current breakdown of the Tesla Supercharger, only 130kW at maybe 248VDC, you can't vary the voltage, so it looks like each charger pulls 525A at 248VDC. Taking a 325W Renewsys panel, it can supply
Re: (Score:2)
"it could be a 'roof' over the road on highways."
Probably. There might be some problems. For example, GPS likely wouldn't work all that well under a solar panel roof. Likewise satellite radio. But it sounds like a lot better idea than say "solar roads"
Re: (Score:2)
"Check your idiot assumptions 1st"
I think you've confused panel power output with power per square meter. The former is a measure of capacity, the latter is a measure of efficiency. Solandri's computation needs w/m^2 and 160 w/m^2 appears to be reasonable for typical current panels. see http://news.energysage.com/wha... [energysage.com] (BTW -- Solar World Panels don't appear to be especially efficient -- at least not if you believe energysage.com)
Re: (Score:2)
More power to him.
Re: (Score:2)
on the Interstate highways. Buy lots of cheap land and put in a charging station every so many miles
I wasn't aware that land with direct access to the Interstates could be had on the cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that land with direct access to the Interstates could be had on the cheap.
Sure it can, it's just far away from any town. That's why truck stops are built at sleepy little exits where nobody lives. Land is cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do better than that. Put them at service stations!
- Ready-laid power lines to supplement the solar when the days are short or the clouds are dense.
- Service stations would be more than happy to host a bank of solar chargers in their parking lot, because a lot of people are going to be stuck there for half an hour while their car does a fast-charge, which means captive customers with nothing to do other than shop and eat.
- Plus the service station gets free power whenever the solars are producing mor
Re:Interstate highways (Score:5, Insightful)
This is already a solved problem. Slap some batteries or other energy storage devices (e.g. industrial flywheels) on the "unpredictable" sources and you can capture that energy for later use, thus making it predictable. And despite your claim that "[t]hese are just facts", the rest of what you said is actually fact-free philosophizing. Rather elegantly written for a troll, to be sure, but fact-free, nonetheless.
Plus, I gotta ask: why do you think so little of America? You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead. That's a lousy attitude, regardless of your political affiliation.
Re:Interstate highways (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, I gotta ask: why do you think so little of America? You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead. That's a lousy attitude, regardless of your political affiliation.
This is Slashdot, you know. As well, the coalition of shills and trolls have lost every battle on the alternative energy front, form coal to nuc to the minute nitpicking they are weakly attempting at present; somewhat reminiscent to the old god of the gaps argument, only weaker, and completely illogical.
As Los Angeles installs a battery powered peaking plant, forgoing even Natural gas, https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
This is real, and it is happening.
Re:Interstate highways (Score:5, Insightful)
You've just moved the goalposts. I was addressing the AC's unpredictability concern. You're talking about the physical size of infrastructure, a wholly unrelated topic, and you've dragged nuclear into it too for reasons I can't fathom.
I really don't feel like trying to convince you of anything much, though I will chime in regarding the topic of labor costs: I think they're a red herring being used by both sides. The labor levels are only high for renewables because we're in a state of transition during which there are a lot of one-time installations. Those jobs will disappear as we reach a stable state, along with the benefits and drawbacks tied to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is zero space needed for solar. If every building had panels on the roof, then we'd produce more power than we consume.
The solar panels themselves may take no real space as it displaces the shingles we'd normally use but what of the inverters, batteries, and so on?
I did the math on converting my house to solar to make a point to a friend. I could in fact run my house on solar power by covering the roof in solar panels. This would require keeping my natural gas furnace and water heater, and maybe replacing my stove and dryer with natural gas too. In the summer I'd have enough extra capacity to charge up an electric hybrid
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk is not claiming that solar takes no space. He'll claim the space used is negligible, and it likely is with the expensive high density batteries he's using. He also freely admits that electric vehicles and solar power don't make sense in every case. Once in a while I'll check his math and roll my eyes at his claims but I don't know what he knows so I realize that he could be making an honest sale but I have my doubts.
Re: (Score:2)
says "solar panel on the roof of every building" and then "no space needed" I dont think you understand what "Space" is buddy..
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
I think nuclear is a great choice, both now and going forward. I still think it has no relevance whatsoever to a discussion about the reliability of wind and solar.
As for moving the goalposts, on rereading what was said in light of what you just said, I think I see where you were coming from. For my part, my intent was simply to poke a troll for fun while pointing out that there are obvious techniques available and in use to address the "unpredictability" problem. It wasn't intended as an endorsement for so
Re:Interstate highways (Score:4, Funny)
>> I think nuclear is a great choice, both now and going forward.
Nuclear is a waste.
Re: (Score:2)
I think nuclear is a great choice, both now and going forward.
In some cases, yes. I am pretty convinced that the days of humongous nuc plants are long gone, however. A simple matter of concentrating so much energy in a small space, and the fact that that energy wants out.
We've seen the results on occasion, and the pro nuc stance is that every accident is a special case, and everyone who isn't in favor of the humongous plants is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
We have indeed, however old plants. They get safer and more reliable for every generation, like using lead as a coolant instead of water.
Wind and sun are good sources of power but we need something to generate for us the days when wind and solar cant provide what we need. If you have god Rivers near bye waterplants are good for storing and realeasing energy but not every one have that luxuruy
So tell me AC, the next invention needs to be the storage battery? Seriously my good man, Los Angeles is shutting down a natural gas peaking plant for a Tesla battery system peaking plant. Maybe you should tell them it cannot be done?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Solar is already cheaper than coal in sunny states without subsidies.
What was proposed was solar panels WITH batteries, flywheels, or other storage. This storage costs money on top of those solar panels. For solar to be as cheap as coal AND still be available 24/7 means that solar has to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than coal to make up for the costs of the storage. A tiny tiny fraction difference in price between solar and coal is insufficient to get people to switch because coal runs 24/7 in any weather, solar does not.
There's a reason coal isn't being built anymore and it's because it's uneconomical.
Coal is uneconomical because natural gas got real cheap
Re:Interstate highways (Score:4, Funny)
This is already a solved problem.
It is NOT a solved problem and as industrious as Americans are they cannot break the laws of physics.
The problem with batteries, flywheels, and such is that they use materials to produce. This means that they take up space, cost money, and must come from something.
And somehow the entire infrastructure of petrochemicals just miraculously happens, free of cost,, world without end amen.
But do go on, you are quite entertaining, I need more of the cold hard fact and laws of physics.
Re:Interstate highways (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see the point of disconnecting SuperChargers from the grid.
In order to do that, you'd need both a lot of solar panels & lots of batteries.
Certainly doable for Tesla but at this time it's still quite expensive. While Tesla has started billing for SuperCharging, it's still in its early days and their promise for it to not be a profit center, means most of the funds will be used for expansion & upkeep.
Tesla needs to participate in the grid *more*, not less, to offset usage of less renewable / more polluting energy generation, to take advantage of low demand / high generation by consuming cheap power that would otherwise be dumped or curtailed, to use their solar installations & battery packs for ancillary grid services such as reactive power.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can manage that Tesla will have no problem disconnecting most of its chargers from the grid.
It is difficult determining if the alternative power detractors are paid shills, useful idiots, or just desperately hanging on to strange nostalgia.
'Murrica is quite capable of making the switch. And we are doing it, no matter what the coal rollers think or how much they whine.
Re: (Score:2)
The Netherlands is about the same size and population as the greater Los Angeles area, about 8% of the area of just the State of California. The size and scale of the task is rather different. In the Netherlands, it's rare to go more than 30-40km and not encounter another town or city; in the US there are hundreds of stretches more than 250 km long with no towns or cities at all. It's a bit different, no?
I lived in Brussels for a few years, and thought nothing of jumping on my motorcycle and riding 400km
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got some hydro.. Shit is potent...
Re: (Score:2)
>>There are robotic cleaners for solar panels. They can easily get rid of snow:
There are also human cleaners for solar panels. They can easily get rid of snow:
Re:Interstate highways (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just stupid environmental theater. Since electricity is fungible, there is no logical reason to co-locate solar panels and charging stations, other than winning brownie points from low IQ environmentalists that care more about symbolism than reality.
Oh yes there is a logical reason. That reason is to put it right in your face, along with all of the other solar and wind deniers. This technology has gone from it's humble beginnings to we have no need for you now.
The fact that you find it necessary to whine about something that you should not care one bit about shows exactly why they would want those non grid charging stations. Just one more part of the argument you are losing.
Re:Interstate highways (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of one reason: Power. Not energy, but power. Fast charging cars takes an insane amount of watts, and in some areas that is going to mean upgrading the grid if you want to provide it all at once. Cheaper to fit your charging station with a battery itsself so it can handle the surge load - and if you are doing that, the extra cost of putting some panels on the roof is negligable, and you can be sure that 100% of the energy produced can be utilised so the economics are favorable.
Re: (Score:2)
The Paris accord is voluntary so the only benefit of dropping out was for appearances.
Appearances of course are the entire game for Trump - not much help for anyone else though.
Re: Three notable gains from this method (Score:2)
1) still need water, sewage and permits and property taxes. This also makes the local grid less stable and diverse.
2) still need to burn carbon in order to mine heavy metals and transport them batteries, the electronics and steel from China etc without much though to eventual disposal.
3) and neither is a utility company beholden to them, what if future governments follow EU lead and mandate dumping excess energy from solar plants into the market. Also, any conversion of power involves AC, even converting th
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume that if the EU mandat
Re: Three notable gains from this method (Score:2)
Number3: You wouldn't convert DC power to AC just for transmission. It would make more sense to do HVDC for transmission and inefficiently convert to AC at destination where needed or where you are plugging back into the grid.
Re: Three notable gains from this method (Score:2)
They are talking about topping cars with these. That is a lot of power that you store up and at some percentage of capacity you boost X charge to a location in need. HVDC would be fine. It is current used for long haul between AC systems and systems with different phases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Locals with a van could be a few states over later selling lots of big solar panels and batteries for DIY projects.
A traditional garage that sells snacks, food and gas is now selling electricity 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
And transporting that DC any distance longer than a few meters will almost always involve AC
You haven't even heard of HVDC and we're supposed to take your opinion on this issue seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Call me a cynic but I don't see an asset like this being left unattended in 2017 without some issues.
Re:Three notable gains from this method (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me an optimist, but in a world where self-driving cars are becoming a reality, I don't think a self-guarding solar array is beyond our reach. Video cameras and security alarms are pretty cheap already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see a fair number of solar arrays cluttering the landscape in Vermont and Northern New York. I'm a bit skeptical of their effectiveness in Winter due to ice, snow, short days, abundant clouds, low sun angle, etc, etc, etc. But vandalism doesn't seem to be an issue.
Like a Canadian comedian once pointed out -- drive by shootings aren't all that big a problem in places where rolling down the car window risks frostbite and no one hangs out on street corners anyway. Sort of applies to busting up/spray paint
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I see a fair number of solar arrays cluttering the landscape in Vermont and Northern New York. I'm a bit skeptical of their effectiveness in Winter due to ice, snow, short days, abundant clouds, low sun angle, etc, etc, etc. But vandalism doesn't seem to be an issue.
Like a Canadian comedian once pointed out -- drive by shootings aren't all that big a problem in places where rolling down the car window risks frostbite and no one hangs out on street corners anyway. Sort of applies to busting up/spray painting solar panels as well.
No skepticism needed, we know what the facts are. Germany's solar averages about 10% capacity factor annually. So if you have a similar northerly climate with cloudy and snowy days, you'll have a similar result. Germany's panels produce very little energy Dec through February on average.
Re:Three notable gains from this method (Score:4, Interesting)
If they can get most of the Supercharger network off the grid, most electric cars wouldn't be powered by anything other than the sun.
The Supercharges network provides only a small contribution to the lifetime energy use of a Tesla car. You have to include the energy used to build the car and the 80+ percent of charging that is done at home. This study [inl.gov] shows 98% of weekday charging occurs at home or work (for car owners with home charging stations). Indeed, I find never having to stop for gas (and very, rarely for electricity) is one of the big perks of plug-in EV ownership.
Also note that point of use generation of renewable energy solves a crucial problem in the renewable energy puzzle: the need to build transmission lines as existing infrastructure reaches capacity. Transmission lines cost about a million dollars per mile and are subject to lots of regional and political considerations.
Kudos to Tesla if they make this work. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the size of the solar farm needed for a Supercharger station.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the US, EVs average equivalent emissions of a 76mpg petrol engine.
Re: (Score:2)
They will be heavily raked South in the Winter so the snow will slide right off. The real problem is low productivity due to low radiation rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearing snow off panels is just part of it. If it is snowing hard during daylight hours, solar won't produce much even if the panels are cleared.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if the roads are being cleared of snow for use, why not clear the solar panels too?
Have you ever seen what a snowplow does to mailboxes, let alone a solar panel?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the ones in Montreal? a meter of snow on the panel will be really efficient in winter.
Most humans live in warm climates. Canada as a whole has millions less citizens than California. Which, by the way, is where virtually all the Teslas are. Also, starting a comment in the subject is a dick move.
Re: (Score:2)
The problems with solar in cold snowy climates is very real. Insulting those that bring it up, and dismissing the facts doesn't change anything.
The fact is that Musk said "almost" all of the superchargers will be converted. The facts are not on your side.
Re: (Score:2)
"A meter of snow also means you're not driving anywhere. So what's your point?"
I take it that you don't live in snow country. Difficult though it may be to believe, major roads, and some minor ones, in populated areas are generally kept open even during major snowstorms. Not that driving when it's snowing 5 or 10cm an hour is any picnic. And it's discouraged except for essential traffic. But it's usually possible.
OTOH, clearing large surfaces like solar arrays where if can't just shove the snow off into
Re: (Score:2)
Remove snow from roads, duh!
Remove snow from solar panels, impossible!
Ha!