Elon Musk Says Tesla Could Rebuild Puerto Rico's Power Grid With Batteries, Solar (electrek.co) 337
After Puerto Rico was hit by hurricane Maria, Tesla quickly started shipping hundreds of its Powerwall batteries there to try and get power back on to some houses with solar arrays. Now, Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to say that Tesla could rebuild Puerto Rico's power grid with batteries and solar on a bigger scale. Electrek reports: Puerto Rico's electricity rates were already quite high at around $0.20 per kWh and reliant on fossil fuels. After it was pointed out that Puerto Rico's destroyed grid is an opportunity to build a better one, Musk wrote on Twitter: "The Tesla team has done this for many smaller islands around the world, but there is no scalability limit so it can be done for Puerto Rico too. Such a decision would be in the hands of the Puerto Rico government, PUC (Public Utilities Commission), any commercial stakeholders and, most importantly, the people of Puerto Rico."
Musk is referring to solar and battery projects that Tesla recently deployed on other islands, like Tesla's visually stunning Powerpack and solar project in Kauai. Those projects power grids for much smaller populations, but Musk has always said that it's scalable to support much larger islands, like Puerto Rico, and ultimately entire continents, which are just like big islands to a certain degree. The thing is that those systems are still reliant on power lines for larger communities and devices, like solar panels and wind turbines, that are still subject to problems with natural disasters. The advantage of Tesla's solution is that it has the potential to be distributed, which increases the odds of at least some systems staying online or bringing some back online quicker.
Musk is referring to solar and battery projects that Tesla recently deployed on other islands, like Tesla's visually stunning Powerpack and solar project in Kauai. Those projects power grids for much smaller populations, but Musk has always said that it's scalable to support much larger islands, like Puerto Rico, and ultimately entire continents, which are just like big islands to a certain degree. The thing is that those systems are still reliant on power lines for larger communities and devices, like solar panels and wind turbines, that are still subject to problems with natural disasters. The advantage of Tesla's solution is that it has the potential to be distributed, which increases the odds of at least some systems staying online or bringing some back online quicker.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news Elon Musk doesn't understand being poor.
What he doesn't understand is that he's proposing a solution to a problem that can be solved in a number of ways if enough money is spent.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
"... If enough money can be found"
That's a bit of a problem. Not only was Puerto Rico broke and effectively in bankruptcy before Hurricane Maria, probably the brokest entity in the destitute island is the Puerto Rico power authority (prepa). It was $9B in debt BEFORE the power grid got ripped up.
Re: (Score:2)
Takes talent to be that corrupt and incompetent.
Re: (Score:3)
They were giving away free electricity which prompted a major to build a skating rink. tsk tsk indeed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0... [nytimes.com]
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
and ocean transportation
Say hello to the Jones Act [wikipedia.org]
Shipping to and from Puerto Rico is actually extremely expensive, because shipping companies avoid putting US flags on their ships.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Why do you think Puertoricians are by default poor. Puerto Rico is part of the United States, the richest countries in the world.
2. I am not sure how upgrading an infrastructure after a disaster is some how being oblivious to the poor.
A cheaper cleaner energy source seems to be overall beneficial. Or are you saying the poor people like to live in polluted areas?
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Puerto Rico is part of the United States, the richest countries in the world.
Maybe... if you look at median wealth per adult we are 13th in the world right behind Spain. Or in 2014 it looks like the median wealth put the US at 25 right between Greece and Slovenia at $53,352. These numbers are tricky, but the US has a lot of wealth... concentrated in certain areas and in certain segments of the population, but there are many smaller countries that on average have much more wealth per person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
to the extent that the US is an effective single market for internal trade there is a lot of opportunity, but the US is more like 15 wealthy countries (states) combined with 35 other countries and some territories that aren't so wealthy. Though in some ways the EU has more of a single market than the US with many US states having effectively set up layers of protectionist laws and regulations to protect local businesses against interstate trade and commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the EU has a bigger market.
510M versus 323M.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Why do you think Puertoricians are by default poor. Puerto Rico is part of the United States, the richest countries in the world. .... oops 1st world ...
With one of the highest percentages of poverty, at least in comparison with the rest of the 2nd world countries
Re: (Score:2)
Citation: https://monthlyreview.org/2015... [monthlyreview.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Puerto Rico is poor because it is part of the US and a part of the world that has been sacked by colonialism for centuries now. Citation: https://monthlyreview.org/2015... [monthlyreview.org]
Everybody seems to have their own theory about why Puerto Rico is "poor" but where are the "rich" Caribbean islands? Puerto Rico is poor because they're an island in the Caribbean with a population over 250,000. Too many people and not enough resources. Just like every other island in the Caribbean. Why does anybody think it's more complicated than that?
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually the richest, if memory serves. I believe Puerto Rico is actually the most competitive country in all of Latin America, but I don't remember how this is measured.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
In other news Elon Musk doesn't understand being poor.
In other other news, PR (or Donald Trump) is going to have to pay someone for a new power grid. Might as well give them the new hotness instead of the old busted.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, that is the bottom line. Do you build something "quick" and "cheap" (not really either), or do you start from scratch with a modern approach. Looking at PR's geographic distribution, inter-tied micro-grids would seem like a reasonable approach. Micro-grids do lend themselves to renewables, so nothing too earth shattering there. You still have the huge mess of a local distribution network (needing 2x as many utility poles as you have today for resilience) to fix, but you reduce the reliance on
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't understand debt. Puerto Rico can't affgors to repair the existing systems.
However without repair the power company goes out of business. No power company no debt owed.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla seldom has any profits, so I think they don't really need it.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, there are many people who can afford Telas but don't choose to because they don't buy into the hype as easily. There is a good deal of hype inflating the price.
I could perhaps afford to buy a Tesla, but I never spend that much on a car. I do think they appear to be fantastic cars and would consider one if I ever became not-a-cheapskate.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you're looking at the wrong competitors.... (Score:3, Informative)
BMW Series 5 sales:
Re: (Score:2)
At his level, you don't just get tax deductions, but actual non-bid government contracts. There's a reason this guy's a billionaire.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which makes paying $0,20/kWh for power all the more difficult, no?
Solar is starting to take over in sunny parts of the mainland even where power is much cheaper than that; its costs have gone way down over the years.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Per EIA [eia.gov] electricity production was almost 50% oil, 34% natural gas, 17% coal, 2% misc renewables.
That is a really, really, lousy set of numbers when you are already a poor island with relatively high transportation costs. Even if you don't give a damn about the environment, oil is silly expensive compared to coal as a base load option; and natural gas has always been quite versatile in terms of spinup/spindown and plant construction; plus it has gotten crazy cheap of late.
Aside from trying to get the anachronistic legal situation that ruins their transport costs sorted out; that's a generating situation ripe to be replaced by something cheaper; and a time when it already needs substantial repair and/or replacement is a convenient opportunity.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
I...wouldn't exactly...want to be Puerto Rico trying to float the bonds required to build that shiny new infrastructure
So what are you saying? They should stick to trying to float the bonds required to rebuilt the old, crappy infrastructure that badly needed to be replaced?
Yes, money is an issue, but it's not like they have much choice about trying to raise it to rebuild. It's rebuild, go back to living without electricity or abandon the island.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
I...wouldn't exactly...want to be Puerto Rico trying to float the bonds required
It will take a massive debt write off for Puerto Rico to be in any position to float any new bonds for infrastructure. At least not unless they link those bonds to specific project revenue and under some separate new authority.
It would be better for Tesla to propose private projects on specific parcels of private land, using private financing and only interact with the government for necessary permitting and coordination of the rebuilding of the grid along public right of ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it is not a state because the old people of Puerto Rico don't want to be one and the young people who do flee to the USA for jobs.
If or was a state then a lot of rheijr current issues wouldn't apply including the Jones act
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the treaties that formally attached Puerto Rico to the US requires a vote every 10 years as to whether or not they want to 1) stay how they are, 2) become a state, 3) seek independence.
The last vote was in June. Become a state got 97% [theatlantic.com] of the vote.
However, anything but option 1 requires Congress to do something. And I really don't think the current Republican Congress is interested in adding some safe Democratic seats to Congress.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if you read the link you provided, that 97% was in a referendum that got less than 25% voter turnout. And the absolute number of votes cast to become a state was actually lower than in previous years.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably only use like 20%til of their oil usage for base load.
But you are right, it is absurd and expensive. But now they already have the plants, only the grid is damaged. OTOH, in such a situation I would always look for niches to mike at least small improvements that last long.
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to have to incur debt to rebuild anyway - whether it's in the form of bonds that they issue, or in the form of US government treasury notes by way of disaster relief legislation. So replace the oil with solar / battery and rebuild the natural gas for it's peaking abilities. It may be more expensive in the short term, but thinking short term is what gets people into the financial trouble that Puerto Rico is already in, and right now they have a great political advantage that they don't norma
Re: (Score:3)
How certain are we that solar panels are the way to go in a hurricane-prone region?
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/as... [theatlantic.com]
It seems to me that fragile, lightweight solar panel farms could be equally devastated by the next hurricane to come along, destroying a massive investment, possibly before they've even paid for themselves. I'd hope that alternatives such as wave and wind power are considered as well. I'm no expert on solar farm construction, obviously, but as a layman, it seem like those are more suited to
Re: (Score:3)
I...wouldn't exactly...want to be Puerto Rico trying to float the bonds required to build that shiny new infrastructure; but it is worth noting that their current(or pre-getting-destroyed) grid was actually absurdly skewed toward expensive fuels. Per EIA [eia.gov] electricity production was almost 50% oil, 34% natural gas, 17% coal, 2% misc renewables. That is a really, really, lousy set of numbers when you are already a poor island with relatively high transportation costs. Even if you don't give a damn about the environment, oil is silly expensive compared to coal as a base load option; and natural gas has always been quite versatile in terms of spinup/spindown and plant construction; plus it has gotten crazy cheap of late. Aside from trying to get the anachronistic legal situation that ruins their transport costs sorted out; that's a generating situation ripe to be replaced by something cheaper; and a time when it already needs substantial repair and/or replacement is a convenient opportunity.
I was trying to be sarcastic there but apparently there are a lot of people on Slashdot today who need to look sarcasm up on Wikipedia. My point is that if your energy infrastructure is a smouldering pile of ruins you are going to have to buy a shiny new infrastructure anyway so why not go for Musk's option? If any of these corporate types can be persuaded to do this at a price that Puerto Rico's purse can handle it is Musk. In fact I think Musk might be persuaded to do the whole thing at something close to
Re:Breaking news!! TROUBLE!! (Score:3)
> Man has product to sell, says his item is the one.
Shades of MONORAIL [youtube.com] [a.k.a. TROUBLE IN RIVER CITY [youtube.com]]
Friend... either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated the suggestion of 'solar 'n storage'! Well, ya got trouble, my friend! Right here in Puerto Rico! Why sure I'm a solar fan, certainly mighty proud I say.... I'm always mighty proud to say... I consider that the hours I spend cultivatin' the little solar patch
Batteries? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Batteries? (Score:5, Informative)
Powerpacks are warrantied for 10 years, and it's not like they just suddenly "die" after that. Li-ions suffer their most capacity drop in their first year of operation / first 50-100 cycles, but the rate of loss declines after that. As an example with Teslas, the average capacity loss is 4% in the first year, but by year 5, typical total capacity loss averages only 6-7%.
Re: (Score:2)
Powerpacks are warrantied for 10 years, and it's not like they just suddenly "die" after that.
How long are they warranted underwater? Because PR is likely to get creamed again within a decade.
Re: (Score:3)
This 5 year life myth really needs to die. It's been debunked over and over and over again, but still keeps coming back.
The cells used in Tesla cars, chemistry and manufacturing developed by Panasonic, are rated for 3000 cycles. They have proven to meet that spec in real life conditions. 3000 cycles with one full cycle per day is over 8 years.
Power grid back-up is actually a fairly easy use case in terms of the charge/discharge load on the cells - it's not like they will go though a full cycle every day.
Re: (Score:2)
The cells used in Tesla cars, chemistry and manufacturing developed by Panasonic, are rated for 3000 cycles.
Where were all the * and [note] and other references that you left out? The cells are not rated for 3000 complete cycles. They are rated to 3000 of the cycles that Tesla's software considered complete which is purposefully a subset of the actual rated power of the cells.
Your 100% fully charged Tesla actually isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Fully cycling any lithium cell destroys it. Panasonic rate the cells for X milliamps, which factors in the minimum discharge and max charge levels. They don't lie like other manufacturers.
Re: (Score:3)
Powerpacks are warrantied for 10 years, and it's not like they just suddenly "die" after that. Li-ions suffer their most capacity drop in their first year of operation / first 50-100 cycles, but the rate of loss declines after that. As an example with Teslas, the average capacity loss is 4% in the first year, but by year 5, typical total capacity loss averages only 6-7%.
Once vehicle power packs have lost a significant percentage of their capacity, their energy/mass and energy/volume ratios drop enough that t makes sense to swap them out for new ones. But except in locations with unusual space restrictions, land-based batteries have no such concerns. Who cares if your 1 mWh battery pack, which has been in use for 20 years, now only stores 500 kWh? Unless something else is wrong with it, you don't replace it, you just install an additional 500 kWh battery to make up the lost
Re: (Score:2)
According to this aticle [electrek.co], which, sure, is from a biased source, a researcher funded by Tesla is able to get only 5% decrease in capacity over 1200 cycles, and some of the research is already going into production.
Tesla already uses different chemistry optimized for stationary storage than they do for cars or you see in other applications like phones and laptops.
They're also planning large scale battery recycling at the factory that produces them.
And I'm not sure about the Powerpacks, but the Powerwalls seem
Re: (Score:2)
You can get figures like that if you use very shallow depth of discharge [batteryuniversity.com]. Say, 10%. The drawback of course is you then need to buy a battery whose capacity is 10x greater than the max charge you plan to regularly use, thus driving up cost 10x. Which is pretty substantial when the battery is already the most expensive part of your system.
The problem is due to the physical distortion of the battery as it's charged [popsci.com]. The greater the cycle
Re: (Score:2)
> As far as I know currently available lithium batteries still wear out after 1,000 cycles.
You aren't wrong, though the number can vary dramatically (0.1-3x) based on the depth of discharge and management. My suspicion is, and I have no basis to assert this, that there will be a maintenance contract which lets Tesla reclaim, recycle, and replace banks of aging cells.
Re: Batteries? (Score:2)
Surprisingly Elon is not the brains behind a lot of this. I wouldnâ(TM)t want him to design a car or a payment site or an above ground subway. Maybe the people that work for him can and some ideas (hyperloop and BFR) are ludicrous but it gets him eyeballs, free patents/tech and subsidies.
Re: (Score:3)
So when you say 14 KWh battery, that's enough power to run a 14 KW load for one hour right? In other words for your home you'd need say 12 of these to handle 12 hours worth of battery run time. Correct? Probably more to make the discharge more shallow, and to handle longer nights in the winter.
The price starts to get a bit more steep at industrial scales. For example I have a 45 KW pump (much more than that during starting), which would cost about $270k-378k ($500-$700 /KWh) for batteries to run it for abo
Of course he could (Score:2)
However, it might be better to let people do it who did that before elsewhere. Including sub terrain cables, like in the EU, which do not fail when there is a hurricane.
Underground? (Score:2)
What's preventing them from building a subterranean power grid? If we can put fiber optic cables on the floor of the ocean, we can put power lines underground and expose them above ground in certain areas. Leaving the critical lines protected and the "last-mile" lines above ground for easy work.
Re: Underground? (Score:3)
Cost and maintenance. Fiber optics is easy, power comes with an entirely different set of difficulties. Fibers get cut frequently and take months to repair, we only donâ(TM)t care because we got sufficient numbers in a cable and enough cables to be redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually putting the last mile under ground makes more sense than the distribution network. What's quicker fixing 10,000 pole drops or one distribution network link?
Obviously having it all underground would be ideal, but the place to start is with the last mile.
However it would appear that making your infrastructure hurricane proof if you live in a hurricane zone is "unAmerican". Meanwhile over the other side of the pond in Europe we just shake our heads in disbelief again at the third world nation that is
Re: (Score:3)
We have underground utilities in the area I live in. They are reasonably reliable, but fixing them when they do fail is extraordinarily expensive and time consuming. They might be better in an urban setting if all utilities -- water, sewer, communications, power, whatever -- were run through tunnels big enough for humans or robots to work in.
Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Never let a disaster go to waste. $$$$$$$
Re:Opportunity (Score:4)
And you think there are no fossil energy companies jumping through hoops to be allowed to build the new power plant(s) and infrastructure PR needs?
Wind - Puerto Rico is a very windy place (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has to be hurricane proof (Score:2)
Solar panels seem especially vulnerable but everything would have to be robust and capable of being secured or removed to minimize damage until a hurricane passes.
Importance of testing (Score:5, Funny)
It's a good thing he tested on smaller islands first. Now we know the weight of the batteries won't cause Puerto Rico to tip over like Guam.
What happens to solar panels in a hurricane? (Score:2)
I think PR and all Caribbean Islands prone to hurricane strikes need to rethink infrastructure, from burying electrical lines in conduits to requiring all habitable structures to be made of reinforced concrete. And, while I think one of solar power's greatest potential is for providing electricity to more remote areas of the world -- such as islands -- I have to wonder how well rooftop solar panels or large solar farms would stand up to category 4 and 5 hurricanes.
I believe the solution Musk is proposing wo
Australia (Score:2)
Let's wait until he's finished his South Australian battery before we give him a new job; he may not even meet his 100 day goal with that.
He's made wild claims before, and the Tesla Model 3 production rate forecast didn't go too well now, did it?
So what? (Score:2)
The source of the energy is only part of the problem. If you rebuild the same distribution system, you're going to end up with the same problem. The power lines need to be buried and that costs a lot more money than stringing wire on poles.
Re:Elon Musk farts butterflies, too? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about being easy, it's about being cost effective.
If you already have a lot invested in the equipment and infrastructure of using petroleum for your energy needs, it's a large financial outlay to invest in a whole new technology that you don't necessarily need (even if the long-term benefits are clear).
However, since Puerto Rico is now in the unfortunate position of having to rebuild much of their infrastructure anyway, and having to spend a ton of money to do so anyway, there's hardly any reason NOT to spend it on new technologies that save money in the long run... and also reduce dependence.
=Smidge=
Re:Elon Musk farts butterflies, too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the expensive power generation facilities destroyed? No.
Just the wires between houses need to be replaced.
Another hurricane will probably destroy Elon's solar and wind so they will have to start over.
The expensive power plants are still there, mostly paid for, and ready to be connected to the wires.
The wires between houses need to be constructed in either scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the expensive power generation facilities destroyed? No.
Irrelevant. The fossil fuel generation systems are extremely expensive to run. About 2/3rds of the utility's costs are just fuel.
Now they need to invest in rebuilding the damaged grid. They can choose to build it like the old grid and carry on paying for increasingly costly, dirty fuel, or they can build a better one with some renewable generation and battery storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if the US just got rid of the Jones Act... Fuel would be cheaper along with everything else. What the Jones Act has done to PR is made mainland shipping companies richer and PR poorer. I don't know if solar/wind would be cheaper overall for PR, they get a great deal of both, but at least get rid of the big Jones anchor around them. I can see one problem with solar/wind is when the next hurricane hits, the panels are going to be destroyed along with any turbine blades. That must be factored into the
Re: (Score:2)
Jones act only prevents shipping from US mainland to PR on non US ships. PR can still directly import oil from west africa on foreign hulls. In fact PR should get into the refining business and then ship the refined gas to the manland. That way the pain of the Jones act comes on the mainland consumers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
With Musks's batteries, the wires that need to be "reconnected" to the power generating facilities can be smaller - hence cheaper - because the batteries will take the local load during peak times, and recharge during off peak.
So, by distributing batteries accross the island, the grid can be smaller, and handle multiple sources, inclusive of oil, solar and wind.
Decentralized generation (Score:2)
The wires between houses need to be constructed in either scenario.
One of the benefits of on-prem solar is that the generation is distributed. So no, the two scenarios are not equivalent in terms of distribution (wires).
Re:Elon Musk farts butterflies, too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trouble is that, to paraphrase JM Keynes, the sun can not shine for longer than any practical, affordable, battery bank can hold out. For applications where you can't turn off the juice occasionally, you really need a nuclear/hydro/fossil fuel backup with wires connecting the generation to the users. And you need to pay to maintain that generation and distribution grid even if you don't use it all that often.
If you try to visualize a system using only wind/solar/waves and "batteries" -- as solar/wind advocates often do -- you'll end up with a system that doesn't always work. And by the time you've appended the stuff you need to make the lights come on reliably when folks throw their light switches, you're going to end up with very expensive electricity.
It's not that there aren't some applications, e.g. pumping water to "reservoirs", running air conditioning, where wind/solar can work fine today. It's that the high reliability and low costs US/Canadian electricity users are used to are VERY difficult to replicate with current "green" technology.
BTW - What's green about huge stacks of Lithium-ion batteries?
Re:Elon Musk farts butterflies, too? (Score:4, Informative)
Trouble is that, to paraphrase JM Keynes, the sun can not shine for longer than any practical, affordable, battery bank can hold out.
This has been untrue for some time now, especially in places where energy costs are high due to fuel being expensive. Practical batteries have existed for over a decade, and costs are now making them a cheaper option than fossil or nuclear.
Practically you would want some wind turbines instead of just solar, but building a suitable size/cost battery is not the issue now. The old major barrier is the need to rebuild the grid to be more suitable, and this disaster presents an opportunity to do that at no additional cost over what would be needed to go back to the old ways.
Re: (Score:3)
The hospital ICU can buy e
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that there aren't some applications, e.g. pumping water to "reservoirs", running air conditioning, where wind/solar can work fine today. It's that the high reliability and low costs US/Canadian electricity users are used to are VERY difficult to replicate on an island over a thousand fucking miles from the mainland.
Fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:3)
"BTW - What's green about huge stacks of Lithium-ion batteries?" Not spewing combustion products into the air. Recyclable/Reclaimable. Over the last 10 years, they've improved dramatically in energy density, longevity, and cost. And as slashdoters should know, they're still well under their theoretical potential.
From an engineer's POV, creating energy on demand is insane. We only do it because storing it has been too expensive. We SHOULD be aggressively pursuing practical energy storage solutions, not denig
Re: (Score:3)
"We SHOULD be aggressively pursuing practical energy storage solutions"
Of course we should. And we (humanity) actually are. Really. DARPA alone funded about 50 projects last year. Lots of researchers and engineers in universities and companies in the US, EU, Japan, China, etc are working on various "battery" projects. Lots of money to be made from better energy storage.
Trouble is that people are impatient and want decades worth of R&D done no later than the end of November at the very latest.
Then t
Re: (Score:2)
Puerto Rico could easily meet it's power needs with wave power. They have multiple sources of renewable power on the island so I'm not sure why the focus is just on solar.
Re: Elon Musk farts butterflies, too? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Battery technology has only recently become good enough.
Battery tech has been 'good enough' for 50 years, just not cost effective. Its still costly.
It does involve removing the entire power grid, and rebuilding.
Which would cost even more.
Re: (Score:2)
And becoming less so... At some point we get to a point where it becomes cost effective. Musk is claiming that this point is now.
Yes. Hence doing this when the grid has already been destroyed means that it's more cost effective.
Before, the cost of existing infrastructure was zero. Now the cost of that infrastructure is the rebuild cost. It makes sense to explore more cost effective alt
Re: (Score:2)
Before, the cost of existing infrastructure was zero. Now the cost of that infrastructure is the rebuild cost. It makes sense to explore more cost effective alternatives.
But much of the grid is still usable, just needing repair. The best bang for the buck would be to strategically bury select distribution line.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would it take removing the existing grid? Do what they did on the island of T'au in American Samoa - install the solar and batteries, and then just shut off the diesel generators. Keep them there in case the battery storage isn't going to last through several days of clouds, and turn them off when the sun shines again.
Why would you need to rip anything out that isn't broken beyond repair, completely obsolete, or entirely redundant?
Re: (Score:2)
There's not enough lithium on the planet to produce the batteries required to do this on a country sized scale:
That's why he's going to Mars
Re: (Score:2)
Such an exaggeration. The amount of lithium used in batteries is minimal. Plus there are other (better) chemistries than lead batteries for cars. Edison used nickel-iron batteries in his electric car for example. Not to mention NiMH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There *is* a scalability problem (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Despite the name, there just isn't that much lithium in a lithium-ion battery - and thus battery manufacturers can pay significantly more and not profoundly affect battery prices.
2) "Reserves" figures are based on a given A) exploration level, B) production tech level, and C) market price point. A) has historically been low, B) hasn't had reason to advance much, and C)... well, see point #1.
3) Growth in reserves with respect to 2A is roughly linear, while it's exponential with respect to 2B and 2C.
As an example of extremes: there's approximately 2,4e17 kilograms of lithium in Earth's oceans. Yes, producing from seawater with current tech (see 2B) costs a few times more than producing from land-based lithium sources per kilogram, so it's not commercially done. But battery manufacturers certainly can afford to pay those prices. And because of that, it's essentially impossible for them to run out of lithium. There can be temporary shortfalls due to production scaleups, but no long-term barriers.
(Not that they would go straight to seawater lithium; there's lots of land-based sources far larger than current "reserves" that would be turned to first)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Despite the name, there just isn't that much lithium in a lithium-ion battery
Just the other day I read the following figures: "Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) 70kWh Model S battery pack contains 63Kg of lithium, equivalent to the amount of lithium in 10,000 cellphones"
Granted, this was in the same advertorial that claimed: "Lithium brine deposits are estimated to contain 66 percent of the world's 14 million metric tonnes (MT) of Lithium" so I am inclined to take their figures with a pinch of salt (no pun intended). After all, combining both of their numbers means there's only enough lithium on
Re: (Score:2)
There's not enough lithium on the planet to produce the batteries required to do this on a country sized scale:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
I find it hard to follow an article which straight up mis-references its own source to the tune of 10%, and its source which mis-references the supply system for a material by quoting hard rock mining which makes up just a percentage of lithium production as it is more expensive than simply extracting from a spring. Mind you even quoting somewhere between 30-40Mt is nothing compared to the 290000Mt of lithium that could potentially be extracted from seawater.
We won't *ever* run out of lithium. The price may
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take issue, AC, with "other technologies". For example:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
https://www.greentechmedia.com... [greentechmedia.com]
Straight up alkaline, abundant base materials, and the same technology can also be used to make other kinds of batteries. Bill Joy is Not An Idiot, although he did miss the chance to make Sun Microsystems' SunOS into Linux before Linux got off of the ground (and in the process, put the hurt on Microsoft) back when he had a perfectly good 386 Unix and nobody else did. Outside of th
Re: (Score:2)
I think for 3.4 million people, you'd need several nuclear power plants. Remember that every few years, the plant goes down for many weeks for refueling and maintenance. We can't just ship everyone on the island to Manhattan until the plant comes back up. Also, the plants take a long time to build and recent projects in the US, Finland, France have had substantial problems with big time cost and schedule overruns.
Re:PRs electircal grid was in shambles... (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably because he's a busy man with at least three companies to run and he can't be made aware of and try to solve every possibly problem on earth.
But when large highly talked about events happen people tend to learn new information about them and act on it.
Re:PRs electircal grid was in shambles... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because though their grid was in a shambles, it existed and was 'good enough' for the locals.
Now that it's effectively gone and they have to build something to replace it, it's a good time to look at options. There's not much cost savings in reusing the old grid.
Re: (Score:2)
No, "the Tesla shareholder" would be saying, "Sell more batteries!" Scale of production is what reduces battery prices.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bermuda can take a direct hit and keep on truckin'. Hurricanes are very powerful, but it's still possible to design around them. They are certainly easier to cope with than large earthquakes, and you get a lot more warning.
Re: (Score:3)
Its going to cost $x to rebuild the grid with what was there before.
Its going to cost $y for this solution from Tesla.
If the difference between $x and $y is low enough that it makes sense to go with the Tesla solution (because it can most likely restore power to some parts of the island faster, because it will probably require a lot less rebuilding after the next major hurricane and because it may reduce power bills for residents) then they should do it rather than just rebuilding the old solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone's got to do it - either the government pays the old electric companies to do it, and they go ahead and fix up whatever old crap they have (or maybe they'd get new stuff in, we don't really know), or else the government pays Musk, who definitely puts in new stuff, which arguably should have a lower running cost than anything that preceded it.
I wouldn't really call this 'preying on the weak' - it's not like the people in PR are going to pay directly for this - it'll come federally, and then possibly g