Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Australia

Tesla To Construct 'Virtual Solar Power Plant' Using 50,000 Homes (cleantechnica.com) 199

Posted by EditorDavid from the on-the-grid dept.
Long-time Slashdot readers denbesten, haruchai, and Kant all submitted this story. CleanTechnica reports: Tesla and the government of South Australia have announced a stunning new project that could change how electricity is generated not only in Australia but in every country in the world. They plan to install rooftop solar system on 50,000 homes in the next four years and link them them together with grid storage facilities to create the largest virtual solar power plant in history. And here's the kicker: The rooftop solar systems will be free. The cost of the project will be recouped over time by selling the electricity generated to those who consume it.

"We will use people's homes as a way to generate energy for the South Australian grid, with participating households benefiting with significant savings in their energy bills," says South Australia's premier Jay Weatherill. "More renewable energy means cheaper power for all South Australians..." Price predicts utility bills for participating households will be slashed by 30%.
Electrek reports that the project will result in at least 650 MWh of additional energy storage capacity, and Tesla points out that "At key moments, the virtual power plant could provide as much capacity as a large gas turbine or coal power plant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla To Construct 'Virtual Solar Power Plant' Using 50,000 Homes More

Tesla To Construct 'Virtual Solar Power Plant' Using 50,000 Homes

Comments Filter:
  • I suspect it may take longer to recoup the costs, but perhaps not.

    Ferret

  • Great news! (Score:4, Informative)

    by sysop ( 126289 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @08:42PM (#56068269)

    This is great news for rental tenants and others who can't make the numbers work on a solar system. South Australians can register their interest at http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au/virtual-power-plant

    • Providing they can convince their landlords to have it installed.
      If the cheap power then makes their property more valuable to renters, they'll up the rent.

      I don't see how this would benefit renters.

      • Of course this is in reference to private rentals, not state housing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jblues ( 1703158 )
        You might be right, but in my experience, I'd say that it will benefit the landlords in lower vacancy rates and the tenants in lower rent. Tends to be the case that the same property with better facilities doesn't significantly increase the resale value - it is advisable not to over-capitalise on rental investments.

      • Re:Great news! (Score:4, Informative)

        by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @11:26PM (#56068693)
        If you read the article, the first 24,000 homes are low-income housing owned by housing trusts. If they're anything like the housing trusts that I'm familiar with, they'll most certainly be on board. Housing trusts serve to house the more vulnerable members of society, not to turn a profit. They're highly unlikely to take advantage of their tenants. In fact, any profits they do make, they usually put into building more low-income housing. Not all countries rape their poor like the Americans do.
        • What you just described about housing, America does.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by haruchai ( 17472 )

      This is great news for rental tenants and others who can't make the numbers work on a solar system. South Australians can register their interest at http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au... [sa.gov.au]

      Perhaps they can also sell shares in this & similar projects, making sure that individuals can buy in & not have it all taken up by big money.
      This should play well in markets with high electricity pricing like Australia, Hawaii, Germany & California.
      And now that Tesla has opened the door, I expect to see other players in energy storage such as Sonnebatterie try to make similar deals.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by haruchai ( 17472 )

        typo: Should be SonneNbatterie, not Sonnebatterie

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by blindseer ( 891256 )

        This should play well in markets with high electricity pricing like Australia, Hawaii, Germany & California.
        And now that Tesla has opened the door, I expect to see other players in energy storage such as Sonnebatterie try to make similar deals.

        Solar power is expensive and unreliable. Sure, batteries address the reliability problem but then add to the cost. Without the batteries then it's cheaper but then something has to fill in the gap during the night. This means burning oil or natural gas.

        I'm sure we'll see competition in batteries being supplied but they all use the same materials and technology to create those batteries. They can only get so cheap. The cheapest batteries are the ones you don't have to buy.

        Coal, oil, natural gas, and nuc

        • Re: Great news! (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Solar power has proven to be affordable and reliable. Not only that, it is a safe investment.

          Give me 1 billion in dollars, I can begin to deliver power before the week is out, even in Australia. Given 10 billion, there is no guarantee that a nuclear plant will ever deliver.

          The same people of South Australia deserve the benefits of solar, not the sure and certain waste of nuclear.

          • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

            by blindseer ( 891256 )

            Whatever. I'll listen to the people that ran the numbers.

            https://blogs.scientificameric... [scientificamerican.com]

            http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]

            Where did you get your numbers from?

            • Re: Great news! (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Reality.

              1 billion dollars? I can buy solar panels and start to install them immediately. Would begin in a week if I wanted.

              A nuclear plant? You'll not produce a single watt without wasting 10 billion dollars. And you'll come back begging for more money when you run out.

              You know that's how it will happen. If Australian money wasn't plastic they'd be better off burning it. Literally, it would be less wasteful than nuclear.

            • Where did you get your numbers from?

              From any jurisdiction where the legal system allows infrastructure projects to be held up indefinitely by any group of activists with a grudge. With enough lawyers, you can make a local street improvement project cost ten billion dollars and look like the worst investment of all time.

        • Re:Great news! (Score:4, Informative)

          by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @11:34PM (#56068713)

          Nuclear power is reliable, inexpensive (at least compared to solar + batteries), carbon free, and also the safest energy source we have.

          Not sure what planet you're living on. Sure it's reasonably reliable. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider it inexpensive. Also, it's definitely not carbon free due to the immense amounts of concrete required to build the plants, never mind mine the Uranium and enrich it. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by blindseer ( 891256 )

            Can you give citations for your claims? I'll provide a couple.

            Nuclear has lower carbon footprint than solar:
            https://www.carbonbrief.org/so... [carbonbrief.org]

            Nuclear power is safer and cheaper than solar:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

            • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by gringer ( 252588 ) on Monday February 05, 2018 @06:53AM (#56069649)

              Ooh, youtube citations! I can do that too:

              Solar is becoming cheaper than all other alternative energy sources:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

              He specifically talks about nuclear here:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

              Tony Seba suggests that personal rooftop solar will eventually be cheaper than any grid supply, even a fantastical free energy supply, because its cost will drop below the cost of transmission:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          • Also, it's definitely not carbon free due to the immense amounts of concrete required to build the plants, never mind mine the Uranium and enrich it.

            The more carbon-free the total economy becomes, the sillier this argument gets. At some point all mining and construction equipment will be electric and as carbon-free as the grid mix allows at the time. And in the meantime, ANY type of mining, smelting and construction is carbon-intensive to the same degree as nuclear. Wind turbine blades and towers are not being made by elves at the North Pole.

        • Re:Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ChunderDownunder ( 709234 ) on Monday February 05, 2018 @02:29AM (#56069121)

          Nuclear is not an option. South Australia does have uranium but there is no domestic market and likely never will be - political suicide to anyone who would stare down environmentalists.

          There were murmurs about commissioning a study a year or two back but any motion would ultimately be defeated by both the coal lobby and the greens.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by blindseer ( 891256 )

            Nuclear is not an option.

            Nuclear is always an option.

            South Australia does have uranium but there is no domestic market and likely never will be - political suicide to anyone who would stare down environmentalists.

            Then the "environmentalists" are ignorant, or idiots, or quite possibly both. Nuclear power produces less carbon than solar and kills fewer birds than wind. If these people are concerned about global warming and saving rare birds then they'd support nuclear power just as much or more than wind and solar.

            There were murmurs about commissioning a study a year or two back but any motion would ultimately be defeated by both the coal lobby and the greens.

            Do the lobbies vote or do the people? I'm sure both lobbying groups contain a lot of people but just how many coal miners are there? I've already established the "greenies" ar

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Cederic ( 9623 )

            Which is clearly totally fucking stupid and demonstrates that environmentalists don't have a clue.

            They should be demanding nuclear and hoping it goes pop. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is a wildlife paradise these days.

            • For the wildlife, as it is no longer hunted by men.
              For humans living there it is still deadly. Considering that a deer lives about than ten years and a human around 70 ...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              Sure, there is a continuous stream of new animals moving in to replace the ones that die.

        • "Nuclear power is reliable, inexpensive (at least compared to solar + batteries), carbon free, and also the safest energy source we have." rofl

        • Solar may not be an industrial baseload, but it can be a good residential backup in places as sunny and as sprawling (high ratio of roof area to population) as South Australia. I'm assuming that eventually photovoltaic will be built into roofing material by default. You will have to order special "shade roof" for places that don't get any sun.

    • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Falconhell ( 1289630 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @08:55PM (#56068319) Journal

      Indeed, I am in SA, and in the first year since my 2kw solar was installed at a cost of $4000 aus, I have saved $1000 on my power bills. I am producing more than I use to run aircon 24/7, but due to the low feed in rate, still have small bills of around $200 aud/ quarter for nightime use. Currently generating 90kw/h per week, and use 77 kwh per week. As the feed in is 11c per kwh and power is 30c per kwh, still get a bill, however when I get a battery, I expect bills to drop to supply charge only.

    • This is great news for rental tenants and others who can't make the numbers work on a solar system. South Australians can register their interest at http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au... [sa.gov.au]

      Did your solar system include Pluto?

    • Yeah, I would love to go solar but I rent so it's pretty much up to the landlord. It would be nice to have someone who will work with landlords to get it.

  • Yes, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04, 2018 @08:48PM (#56068287)

    we .au techs have informed them that it is in fact a Distributed Power Plant, not a Virtual one (but if they want unlimited virtual power i have these solar panels in minecraft they could use).

    PSA + bad jokes expended. My work here is done.

    • (but if they want unlimited virtual power i have these solar panels in minecraft they could use).

      Mate, unless you've got the Galacticraft mod installed, those'll be light sensors, not solar panels.

  • Solar panels are always connected to the grid. And several other companies have offered to install them for free if the householder pays slightly reduced power costs to the company.

    The key point is that only about 1/4 of the cost of buying power is the generation. About half is in transmission and distribution. And the other quarter in admin, solar subsidies etc. So we pay about 21c/kwh, but only get paid about 6c/kwh to give power to the grid.

    That means the real benefit is to be able to use the power d

    • The kicker is that soon (5 years?) batteries will be cheap enough for people to go off grid altogether. And then who will pay the 75% of costs that are not related to generation?

      This is going to be a real problem. I certainly plan to drop the grid at the first chance, and those who must remain on it will suffer some pretty big price hikes.

      With people who build in isolated ares, we are already seeing the cost of running the grid power to their homes is more expensive than rolling their own.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwywit ( 1109409 )

        My last upgrade - in order to qualify for the off-grid subsidy, required a quote for the cost to connect to the grid - which ended 600 metres away. AUD$30,000 (yes thirty K) not including tree-clearing costs.

        The cost to upgrade our system (6 extra panels, controller, new set of lead-acid batteries, charger, and installation) only came to AUD$22K, so we qualified for the subsidy.

        I can't imagine the cost to get the grid connected if you're more than a few km from the nearest pole.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

        In Montana 4 years ago, I was quoted between $25,000 and $75,000 per mile, depending on the company and the terrain. (A local co-op was the low end, a mid-sized Edison type was the high end.) First 300 feet is free, IF it comes from a main line, not some neighbor's drop.

        In California 20 years ago, I was quoted $12/foot for above-ground and $40/foot ($210k/mile) for buried cable, but Edison told me both were now functionally no-goes due to CA's goofy regulations and high costs (new above-ground is now mostly

    • During summer afternoons, I get paid 44c/kWh for power that I feed into the grid. I buy it back at night at 12c/kWh, so I don't have any reason to go off grid.

      • In Germany going off grid would be super stupid.
        Most household solar plants with battery storage are already in 'virtual power plants'.
        It is used for balancing power, the interesting part is the battery.
        It is not only filled by the owners solar panels but also from the grid.
        An it does not only power the house but feeds back into the grid, too.

    • The kicker is that soon (5 years?) batteries will be cheap enough for people to go off grid altogether.

      That won't happen. Or, it might happen but the market will quickly correct for this and make being connected to the grid economical again.

      One day after discussing the cost of energy with friends I decided to figure out just how much it would cost me to go off grid. I took several angles to this and one was to just buy one of those "backup" natural gas generators and run it continuously. If I assumed that I could use the electricity as it was generated then my cost for the natural gas was the same as what

      • On the other hand, this wonderful grid of theirs has significant costs of its own. That's why the electric companies are always bellyaching about how expensive their grids are to run when they're trying to get net metering outlawed.

        On my electric bill, charges are split out into categories, some that can be assigned to actual electricity generation, and others that can be assigned to the connection and distribution. Typically, 40% or more of the charges are due to the latter.

        That means that if I went off-gr

        • The electric utility is not in the business to make electricity, they are in the business to make money. If solar + batteries ever do get to a point where the costs of running wires is above that of what it takes you to disconnect from the grid then I can expect the utility to pay you to go away so they can focus on more profitable customers. As people on the fringes disconnect the people closer to the power plants will see costs go down for not having to subsidize the long wires out to sparsely populated

          • Keep in mind that Australia gets a lot more sun than do most parts of the U.S., especially here in Cleveland (cloud cover 83% of all days, reducing solar output to 10-25% of normal), so the cost/benefit equation is very different as yet. But I do hope that as technology improves, solar power does end up being competitive throughout at least the sunnier parts of the U.S. and even Canada.
  • in my neck of the woods, but the contracts are just awful. They're structured so that the homeowner takes on all the risk. There's monthly lease payments for the equipment and if the value of the electricity generated doesn't cover the lease you're on the hook to pay the rest. Also if you move you have to buy out the lease or get the new homeowner to buy into it. It's a pretty crap deal all around.

    • in my neck of the woods, but the contracts are just awful. They're structured so that the homeowner takes on all the risk. There's monthly lease payments for the equipment and if the value of the electricity generated doesn't cover the lease you're on the hook to pay the rest. Also if you move you have to buy out the lease or get the new homeowner to buy into it. It's a pretty crap deal all around.

      I think your solar power setup is run by the Koch Brothers.

      • Nah, sounds like a standard SolarCity type setup. You can lease the panels for the electricity generated, but it's a 20 year lease, stiff exit clauses prior to the 20 year term, is non-transferable, and if the electricity generated does not cover the initial projections of income, the homeowner is on the hook to cover the difference.

        • Nah, sounds like a standard SolarCity type setup. You can lease the panels for the electricity generated, but it's a 20 year lease, stiff exit clauses prior to the 20 year term, is non-transferable, and if the electricity generated does not cover the initial projections of income, the homeowner is on the hook to cover the difference.

          Well then it is pretty weird. Might as well just generate it and keep it. THe selling back to the grid was always a canard in my book.

          • Yeah, it's a nice racket - get people to pay you for the pleasure of their own power generation, cover your losses if the sales prices drop, guarantee to pay you for 20 years of equipment - and get some nice fat Government subsidies at the same time. It's amazing that they STILL can't make a profit with all that!

  • 30% savings claim (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04, 2018 @09:11PM (#56068369)

    I'd be cautious about their claims of a 30% savings. I had SolarCity give me a very similar pitch. At the time, electricity prices were USD$0.08/KWh. Their offer was that I would be required to purchase from SolarCity 100% of the electricity my roof generated, at $0.13/KWh, for the life of the system. Pay close attention to what I just said - generated electricity, not consumed electricity. If I only consumed half of the electricity generated by my roof, I would sell the remainder to my local utility at the going rate, which is still $0.08/KWh. In fact, it's been $0.08 +/- $0.01 for the past 15 years. The more the sun shined, the bigger the hole I would have been digging for myself. Fortunately for me, I understand basic math, so I declined their offer. I instead purchased my panels from a local installer, and I'm on track to have my system pay for itself within my original 7 year estimate.

  • Meanwhile, people who paid the $1,000 to pre-order a solar roof from Tesla 9 months ago are being told it will be another 5 to 8 months.

  • It's all very nice. But will the power grid support that infrastructure?

  • had light version in Europe for years (Score:3)

    by Jerry Atrick ( 2461566 ) on Monday February 05, 2018 @07:56AM (#56069755)

    In Europe we've been able to contract our roofs to PV companies for years. They take any profit, the homeowner gets free electricity. With the drop in feed in tariff rates new installations are dead in the UK now but it's still viable elsewhere. The schemes are so old they predate affordable domestic storage systems or grid storage but Tesla aren't really doing anything new.

    • In Germany the profit is shared.
      Why would anyone give all the profit to a foreign company?

      Of course Tesla is not doing anything new, and claimimg that 50,000 roofs virtual power plant is the largest in the world, is just a joke, Germany has dozens of them.

      • Should have said 'income'. Because we rarely meter generation, self use and generation income are uncoupled, the company get's the predictable income, the user the unpredictable self generation saving. It's a reasonable exchange.

        Buying the system yourself always had a higher return but having a system at all beats one you can't afford to install.

        • Well, in Germany most "similar schemes" the company doing the "management" and the owner just share the profit. After all, the profit is changing extremely over the day or the year.

  • So cool idea but the real question is how do they plan to finance it? Putting solar on that many homes will be a huge up front capital expenditure (with some ongoing maintenance costs too) and that money has to come from somewhere. Furthermore the payback on a system like this isn't going to be in a year or two. It's going to take a decade plus or minus a few years to break even under even the most optimistic of assumptions. So Tesla will have to raise a large amount of capital today for a speculative p

  • The participants' houses won't completely belong to them anymore, just to cut 30% of electricity cost? Now that's a deal. :D

  • You know, those solar "leases" where you put the panels on your house and they sell you the power at a "discount"?

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close