Tesla's Virtual Power Plant Had Its First Event Helping the Grid 74
Klaxton shares a report from Electrek: Last year, Tesla launched a VPP pilot program in California, where Powerwall owners would join in voluntarily without compensation to let the VPP pull power from their battery packs when the grid needed it. Following the pilot program, Tesla and PG&E, the electric utility covering Northern California, launched the first official virtual power plant through the Tesla app in June. This new version of the Tesla Virtual Power Plant actually compensates Powerwall owners $2 per kWh that they contribute to the grid during emergency load reduction events. Homeowners are expected to get between $10 and $60 per event. Earlier this week, Tesla's California VPP expanded to Southern California Edison (SCE) to now cover most of the state. Just days later, the Tesla VPP had its first emergency response event.
Tesla reached out to Powerwall owners who opted in the program through its app yesterday to warn them of the event and give them the option to opt-out if they needed all the power from their Powerwalls today. It looks like 2,342 Powerwall owners participated in the event on the PG&E network and 268 homes on the SCE grid. For PG&E, Tesla's VPP was outputting as much as 16 MW of power at one point during the event -- acting as a small distributed power plant.
Tesla reached out to Powerwall owners who opted in the program through its app yesterday to warn them of the event and give them the option to opt-out if they needed all the power from their Powerwalls today. It looks like 2,342 Powerwall owners participated in the event on the PG&E network and 268 homes on the SCE grid. For PG&E, Tesla's VPP was outputting as much as 16 MW of power at one point during the event -- acting as a small distributed power plant.
Could have done this with their cars 10 years ago (Score:2, Interesting)
but Elon always seemed to dislike V2G although it's supposed to be a feature of the Cybertruck
Re: (Score:3)
The cybertruck looks neato, but it's a bad design for a pickup for a whole bunch of reasons including visibility and compatibility with pickup truck accessories. Even if the only thing they do to the design is notch it so that the bed rails are flat, it will make dramatically more sense.
They made promises not supported by their existing platform, and painted themselves into a corner with their "bold" design (similar to Apple's "brave".)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla isn't interested in building Cybertrucks at a loss. They've been developing the batteries for the CT, building the factory to build the batteries, and building the factories to build the CT. Ford went simple and designed a good electric truck in an already-established body-on-frame design and re-used a lot of existing truck factory design and equipment. Ford also partnered with SK Innovation to supply truck batteries from a new factory in Georgia. If I had to guess, I'd say Ford still knows basica
Re: (Score:2)
If I had to guess, I'd say Ford still knows basically nothing about batteries relative to Tesla.
Batteries are complicated, but Ford can just hire in that kind of talent. It's not like nobody knows about batteries. You can just take them apart to find out what they are made of these days. Using laser spectroscopy and electron microscopy, you can determine their most intimate details, so those details are protected by patents and not as trade secrets, and everyone knows the details. The cooking process for the electrolytes might not fit this description, but the other EV manufacturers (less GM) seem to
Re: (Score:2)
Because they used so much of an existing design, Ford has already delivered base model F-150 Lightnings, reportedly as high as 20% of deliveries to date.
That's amazing for the penny pinching early adopters
Re: (Score:2)
a CT reservation holder, I'm happy to wait another year for a truck that will probably be great AND profitable.
I'm with you there. I expect to be waiting somewhere around 3 years for mine, as according to the Cybertruck owner's group estimate, I am 2.6 million in order for my reservation, but I think it is worth the wait. It isn't like my Tundra is going to just die, so I can wait it out.
I am hoping Elon/Tesla take as long as they need to get it done well, every delay means a better truck in the end, and the possibility of moving past the current inflation and supply chain issues that have been mucking everything
Re: (Score:2)
"If I had to guess, I'd say Ford still knows basically nothing about batteries relative to Tesla. So, basically, Ford and their customers are going to have to trust that SK knows WTF they're doing, that the batteries will last, that they will work well over all temperature ranges, etc"
Tesla relied almost entirely on Panasonic for close to a decade. And while making reliable batteries is difficult it's not rocket science.
But even Tesla gets it wrong - and were forced to pay out damages
https://electrek.co/202 [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really that solid... (Score:1)
It's sad that the F-150 lightning has beat them to market
But have they really?
Is it OK to just dump anything out and claim you beat someone to market, when long term you have a product that will not hold up in the market?
I've not been hearing very good reviews about the Lightning, and one of them that is really bad is towing range, which is a bit issue for a truck for a lot of people.
Tesla is working to deliver a product that I think is a lot more market viable, including some build configurations that hav
Re:Could have done this with their cars 10 years a (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there are two reasons for Tesla cars not supporting vehicle-to-grid capability (yet).
First, the lifetime of a car's battery is related to how many charge-discharge cycles the battery undergoes. For example (using made-up numbers), if you get 200 miles per charge and you can recharge the battery 2000 times before it degrades significantly, then you have a battery lifetime of 200 * 2000 = 400,000 miles. But if you frequently use the car to power an off-grid home or a home during a blackout, then you will find that your car's battery needs to be replaced far earlier than 400,000 miles. That could spell a PR disaster, because many car owners would not realise that car-to-grid can shorten a car battery's life.
Second, I forget the technical name of the valve component, but Tesla vehicles use a one-direction rather than a two-direction electrical valve in the car, which saves on costs but prevents car-to-grid functionality.
In recent years, some significant improvements have been made to battery technology. For example, LFP batteries support about 3 times the number of charge-discharge cycles of lithium ternary batteries. And Tesla has been funding researchers who have been making progress towards a "million mile battery" and even a "100 year battery". As the expected lifetime of batteries gets to be significantly longer than the expected lifetime of a car, it is reasonable to assume that more and more car makers will support car-to-grid, since the battery will still likely outlive the car.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a a snapshot of a EV screen, forget which, it had a 10.000kWh or 4000 hour limit to the V2L function.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, I forget the technical name of the valve component, but Tesla vehicles use a one-direction rather than a two-direction electrical valve in the car, which saves on costs but prevents car-to-grid functionality.
Diode?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
He often gives things the wrong name too. This isn't a power plant, it doesn't generate anything. It's storage.
Re:Could have done this with their cars 10 years a (Score:5, Informative)
While you are technically correct, from the standpoint of a grid operator it doesn't really matter. When demand outstrips generating capacity, the grid operator calls for more power. This collection of batteries can deliver power, so it gets viewed as a "power plant" in the same way that a gas turbine peaker plant is. The fact that, at other times, all those batteries are on the demand side of the equation is irrelevant. (Many of those batteries are being charged by residential solar, and so end up time-shifting electricity that would otherwise go out immediately as net metering - a further complication when thinking about whether a stack of batteries is a power plant or not.)
Notably, a collection of batteries functions identically to a pumped hydro station, and I don't hear anyone getting pedantic about the name given to that.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean these aren't generators? Who would have known?
https://www.homedepot.com/b/Ou... [homedepot.com]
It is unfortunately a common terminology, I think that ship has sailed.
Kind of is... (Score:1)
He often gives things the wrong name too. This isn't a power plant, it doesn't generate anything. It's storage.
Since Tesla Powerwalls are often installed along with solar systems, it technically is mostly a power plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Now there's an app for it.
$2/KWh ?! (Score:2)
Re:$2/KWh ?! (Score:4, Informative)
This is emergency pricing. The utility is willing to pay $2/kwh (presumably more since I assume Tesla takes a cut) for the ability to cover a sudden surge in demand or loss of generating capacity that might otherwise result in a widespread blackout.
They don't say how long the event lasted but it's likely on the order of minutes to maybe just over an hour. I'd be interested to see an actual timeline honestly...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
They don't say how long the event lasted but it's likely on the order of minutes to maybe just over an hour. I'd be interested to see an actual timeline honestly...
From the video in the fine article: Active Event - 2 hours left - Discharging
=Smidge= to you too.
Re: (Score:2)
"2 hours left" just means that's how long it will take to discharge the battery at the current rate. This tells us absolutely nothing about how long the power deficit lasted or what the demand profile was.
The "Event" was scheduled from 5AM to 9PM but this is only the window of time during which their Powerwall maybe called upon to deliver some power.
The only clues we have are the video and screenshot from two different people, showing times of 6:10 and 6:54 respectively, both showing ~16KW. We don't know if
Re: (Score:2)
The "Event" was scheduled from 5AM to 9PM but this is only the window of time during which their Powerwall maybe called upon to deliver some power.
I am customer that is part of the VPP and this isn't accurate. The discharge period was clearly defined as being from 6:00-9:00pm and was clearly communicated within the Tesla App 24 hours before. The 5:00am start time simply changed some of the Powerwalls rule. The first change was that the Powerwall could be recharged from the grid versus just from solar (similar to the Stormwatch feature) if the user had enable this option. The second change was that it stopped the Powerwalls from discharging prior t
Re: $2/KWh ?! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is $2/kwh for a portion of the power, which would be presumably cheaper than a peaker plant coming online. That isn't to say that all the power generated at that time period cost that much, but only this power, it balances out with the other power generation and someone gets less profit than before to cover the difference or the cost is distributed among many customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Utilities have been pushing everyone to time-of-use billing, where you pay crazy prices at certain times. On high demand days they offer discounts to those that conserve - if you don't conserve you pay up during that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Tesla (er, Fremont) California. My rates for electricity swing from $0.19/kWh to $0.53/kWh depending on the time and who generated the power. Peak rate is between 3PM to 9PM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
shoving the cost of improving the power infrastructure to the consumer
The consumer isn't paying additional costs; they're getting much more money than it costs them.
This allows utilities to avoid investment in infrastructure improvements, allows government to avoid having to pass unpopular taxes to pay for it
Yes, and that's a good thing. This is a way to share the load without more generation, more power lines, more taxes, etc. Paying for extra capacity is really expensive, and it's extra because it largely goes unused. This is an efficient solution; the batteries are already there, and they can be useful.
chock full of virtue signaling so wealthy technocrats can feel good about themselves in spite of destroying the environment in the developing world
Preventing blackouts or extremely expensive and polluting peaker plants from coming online is virtuous, I'm glad t
Re:Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm gonna guess that the people who can afford a Powerwall, plus also likely a Tesla, plus all the infrastructure, certification, etc. to feed back to the grid, and agree to volunteer that battery power for free and willingly.... aren't in desperate need for $60 or so.
While this is true, it's irrelevant. That's not the point.
This isn't a sustainable or scalable solution
Why not? You just say that like it's been proven already. It isn't. Whether it's sustainable is up for debate. It's obviously scalable. That's literally the whole point of this. It's scalable because it's distributed. Look that last word up if you're still confused.
I imagine quite a few people in such an event are now reconsidering whether they should actually let someone else leech from their independent power storage that they've purchased especially for that independence whenever they feel like it.
Nearly zero people are probably feeling that way, because 100% of the people in this program deliberately opted in. The only reason anyone would care is if they went through a subsequent blackout, and the drain on the system meant they had to suffer through it. This is extremely unlikely.
It's like letting the electricity company pay to suck the power out of your server UPS when the grid does down.
Yes, that's exactly what it's like. And that's coming, too. There's really no drawback to letting them take 10% or so from your battery bank, which hopefully was correctly overspecified anyway so that normal battery degradation during service life doesn't reduce runtime below specification. This system test presumably drew more than that, but you can set your reserve power level [tesla.com].
The more people participate, the more the system can provide without causing anyone problems. It does in fact scale. One of the best things about it is that it requires no new infrastructure outside of the home.
Re: (Score:2)
His point was that he is skeptical that participation will scale, not that it can't scale technology wise.
He acknowledges that the people who did participate did so deliberately. He wonders if that would extend to more participants.
In support of his suspicion, when a major gas pipeline shut down, for everyone that minimized their consumption by opting to move less or maybe even take public transit, there were probably 10 more that drove straight to a gas station with as many gas cans as they could find to h
Re: (Score:2)
He acknowledges that the people who did participate did so deliberately. He wonders if that would extend to more participants.
Why not? Why would people not want to participate in something that pays them to help keep the grid stable? Set the reserve limit to 50% to prevent any deep discharges, and it will probably be profitable, and also help keep the lights on. That seems like a big win. I can see the popularity snowballing, and also eventually the whole idea becoming brand-agnostic and standards-based, but there could really be multiple parties participating with their own networks even under the current system.
Re: (Score:2)
Because as I said, people tend to horde to the extent possible when given a chance. That gasoline they were trying to just go to town on? It was massively expensive. It would have been way cheaper to just cut back and try to make their current supply last. Economics failed to discourage that behavior. A lot of those folks never got near using up their newly acquired stash.
So if they have the option for 'it's financially in your interest to let us cut your battery reserve from 2 to 1 day', A lot of folks wou
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a bunch of people participated in the trial, so it's pretty hard to argue that people aren't going to participate in future load balancing efforts. A powerwall can only keep you going for a day or two, so in a serious event you're going to load up the SUV and head for the cabin. (I'm assuming most of the people with a powerwall have some money...)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a sustainable or scalable solution
Why not? You just say that like it's been proven already. It isn't. Whether it's sustainable is up for debate. It's obviously scalable. That's literally the whole point of this. It's scalable because it's distributed. Look that last word up if you're still confused.
When money and resource utilization is no object almost anything can be made to scale.
Power walls are wasteful compared to a grid scale ESS. For every few kWh's installed there is a low voltage 48v bus, low voltage AC to DC charger, BMS and inverter with high frequency high current electronics. Every few kWh's of storage requires custom installation including integration into existing low voltage electrical systems including running new circuits thru existing structures. Scaling beyond 20 kWh's incurrs a
Re:Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
> plus all the infrastructure, certification, etc. to feed back to the grid
The end user isn't responsible for any of this. The infrastructure is already there since presumably to be eligible the house needs to already have a grid connection. "Certification" is on Tesla as the manufacturer of the equipment and the operator of the network.
> This isn't a sustainable or scalable solution
Sure it is, In fact I'd argue that millions of small, localized storage systems is far superior to large centralized installations. It's easier on the infrastructure, and being distributed means it's more robust.
> I imagine quite a few people in such an event are now reconsidering whether they should actually let someone else leech from their independent power storage that they've purchased especially for that independence whenever they feel like it
I mean, you as a Powerwall owner who has voluntarily signed up for this program can set how much of your capacity you're willing to sell back, and at $2/kwh that's not a bad incentive. When you consider that contributing a few kwh over the course of an hour might help prevent a total loss of power that could last days, that's also a motivation.
This is voluntary, user-controlled, and generously compensated...
=Smidge=
Re:Tesla (Score:4, Interesting)
I was one of the 268 homeowners that participated in this event in the Southern California Edison (SCE) area. In total my 2 Powerwalls sent a total of around 18 kWh back to the grid from around 6.30 pm to 9 pm. My system sent that much power because I played with the settings ahead of time to lower my battery reserve percentage to try to maximize participation during what was the first type of event of this nature.
Do I need the $2/kWh? No. Will it help offset the cost of the system? Sure, a tiny little bit. I'll take the $36 or so that come from this.
Was there any negative impact to my house during this? Not in the slightest other than my family wondering why I was fiddling with the Tesla app throughout the evening.
I'll echo what several others have said: I see nothing but upside to this program. I voluntarily signed up via a 3-minute in-app process, helped stabilize the grid during an emergency event at virtually no cost or impact to myself, and I made some taco money along the way. The only possible downside I see to participating is 1) the marginal additional degradation of the Powerwall batteries as I let them drain to ~15% instead of the more usual 45-50% when they cover our electricity use during the high-cost time-of-use rate from 4 pm to 9 pm, 2) the tiny risk of a longer power outage during the night when my battery reserve was lower than usual. This could be mitigated by simply setting a higher backup percentage instead of what I did which was the opposite (lowering the minimum threshold in order to send more power back to the grid).
I really don't see the tiny amount of additional battery use as a reason to not participate. These types of events are still fairly rare. Maybe 5-10 days a year on the high side where the Powerwall is discharged a little more than normal. For someone to want to 'hoard' all their saved power on the off chance that there will be an outage? I'm sure some people are paranoid enough and will choose not to participate but I'd expect that to be a minority.
It's hard to say how much I reflect Powerwall owners in general as I'm obviously a tech geek and early adopter (I signed up for the VPP the day it was announced) but I suspect the main challenge Tesla will have in expanding participation is simply getting people's attention and getting enough people to care to go through the sign-up process.
Re: (Score:2)
If the pittance that you get paid for contributing power is taxable, and you did check on that little detail before signing up, then what is it really worth to participate?
After all, that piddly little amount is INCOME to YOU...and only the BIG CORPS get all the fancy advantages that help them to avoid paying any taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fascinating to me that you only see this as worthwhile if you personally get an immediate short-term benefit and that you see it as a negative if a big corporation sees benefits of their own. Whether I see an effective income of $36, $28, or something else in that ballpark really isn't what determines if I want to participate. At best it's a small side benefit. Like I said: taco money (or "paid for Netflix for a month or two" money).
I see it as a distinct benefit to me personally that the utility grid
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a sustainable or scalable solution, especially if it becomes commonplace [...]
In the short-term (and where you live), you might be right. However, in the long-term (and more globally), virtual power plants could offer some nice benefits. The potential benefits rely on the assumption that the cost of solar panels and battery storage will get exponentially cheaper over time. If that assumption turns out to be correct, then instead of having centralised power plants that ship electrical power over hundreds/thousands of miles to consumers, each neighbourhood could have sufficient solar p
Re: (Score:2)
My house in Australia with a 6kw panel easily generates more than I use in a day for most days in spring summer and autumn - between 25 to 35 kwh. In winter it generates about 15 kwh, partly because I get more shading in the afternoon in winter. When I lived there, I used to use about 20 kwh per day. I didn't have a battery though, so I only tended to use about 10 kwh of the solar generated, and the rest was sold onto the grid for a credit of about 12 c / kwh. Buying power from the grid costs me 25c. /kwh.
Re: (Score:1)
You must use (grid) storage which isn’t what OP was talking about, they were implying that a set of panels on your roof can collectively generate all you need in any neighborhood.
Also, 30kWh is very low consumption, charging a 50kWh battery in your Tesla is pretty much out of the question, as would be heating/cooling with electric, which is anywhere from 24-100kWh per day. People tend to forget that most home heating is still done with fossil fuels and can be anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of your energy bu
Re: (Score:2)
If the price comes [down] would be very unlikely, the cost of resources is going up since there is more demand than total available supply.
The price of solar panels has already fallen by a huge amount. Look at this graph, which goes back to 1995. If it went back even further, into the 1970's, it would be even more dramatic.
https://sites.lafayette.edu/egrs352-sp14-pv/files/2014/05/chart2_solar_pv.gif [lafayette.edu]
Graph taken from this page: https://sites.lafayette.edu/egrs352-sp14-pv/technology/history-of-pv-technology/ [lafayette.edu]
Re:Tesla (Score:4, Interesting)
The model exists with the program that covers half the mortgage for public servants in certain neighborhoods. The buyer takes on a loan which is forgiven over time. This is possible and is sustainable. It also creates a distributed power supply which will make the grid more resilient.
And the cost could be small with power companies paying back the loans with money they would use to purchase power or new equipment. This would especially effective in areas that are now at greater risk of fire because residents demand the dangerous electrical equipment be installed in forests that are effectively just tinder boxes
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna guess that the people who can afford a Powerwall, plus also likely a Tesla, plus all the infrastructure, certification, etc. to feed back to the grid, and agree to volunteer that battery power for free and willingly.... aren't in desperate need for $60 or so.
This isn't a sustainable or scalable solution, especially if it becomes commonplace, and I imagine quite a few people in such an event are now reconsidering whether they should actually let someone else leech from their independent power storage that they've purchased especially for that independence whenever they feel like it.
Especially if they only do so when the grid isn't coping well, which means that if the leeching hadn't quelled the inequality between supply and demand you'd have no grid power AND no independent backup battery power supply.
It's like letting the electricity company pay to suck the power out of your server UPS when the grid does down.
Mods please follow the rules and read the Slashdot FAQ prior to moderating. There is no I disagree, this person is wrong or I dislike what they had to say mod.
In Ontario (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, EVs plugged in and charging does seem like a good optional drain that could be dialed back in an emergency. Particularly charging at work during the day, which seems like a likely scenario for the late-afternoon peak-demand scenario.
There are certainly times when I absolutely need my EV to charge, but they are few and far between (mostly road-trips where I make a pit stop to charge and am sitting there waiting for it). But it's usually completely optional and I'd be just fine charging at home or wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In Ontario (Score:2)
So youâ(TM)re basically running your own gas or diesel powered power plant then during those hours. Not sure how that jives with the climate change crowd, but itâ(TM)s a mirage then that running solar and wind on the grid is a net good, since it is also making it frequently unstable, causes generators across the industry that are ostensibly much less optimized and more wasteful to consume more gas/diesel.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas has incentive programs like this as well. And it's being taken advantage of by crypto-miners (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Tomlinson-Cryptocurrency-miners-profit-from-17369941.php).
1. Squander limited resources.
2. ???
3. Profit from incentive pay that asks you to use a more reasonable share of the scarce resources.
But Nuclear is too expensive (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, electricity in SLO averages 26 cents per kilowatt-hour. [energysage.com] And to keep Diablo Canyon open, PG&E wants a $1.4 billion "forgiveable" loan [newtimesslo.com], which could raise electric rates another 3 cents.
29 cents is less than $2.00 but electricity from baseload plants is always cheaper than that from peaker plants.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant [wikipedia.org] "The plant produces electricity for about 6 cents per kWh," The PG&E fact sheet claims that it produces electricity for 2.78 cents.
Also that loan is only necessary because the state forced them to shutdown in 2016. Otherwise they would not need them.
Re: (Score:3)
No, electricity in SLO averages 26 cents per kilowatt-hour. [energysage.com] And to keep Diablo Canyon open, PG&E wants a $1.4 billion "forgiveable" loan [newtimesslo.com], which could raise electric rates another 3 cents.
29 cents is less than $2.00 but electricity from baseload plants is always cheaper than that from peaker plants.
You're taking the average cost of power in a region, not the cost of that specific generator. Nuclear plants have operation costs often in the low single digits of $/MWh, extremely cheap. Most of the cost of a nuclear plant takes the form of capital expenditures, not O&M. So a large upfront cost to build (and associated interest on loans), cost of safety and emission system upgrades and replacement, etc. For the amount of power they produce the actual cost in salaries and fuel rods is a pittance, wh
Re: (Score:2)
This is a solution for managing peaks in demand (or dips in supply). Diablo Canyon, supplying baseload power, is running pretty much continuously at full capacity. It would be fantastically expensive to build out nuclear that could handle 100% of peak demand, because for huge amounts of time that capacity would be sitting idle.
A more apt cost comparison would be to compare the $2/kWh rate t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Northern Illinois & Chicago are almost completely nuclear powered and I pay less than 7 cents per kWh. Something is rotten in California.
Totally agree
A friend of mine works for a big electric power provider in California. My friend gets to see some very interesting numbers in their work, especially when it comes to meeting diktats from SAKramento regarding GREEN power production. To call it "political arm twisting" is being extremely polite since it completely distorts the company's ability to invest properly in electric distribution infrastructure. Yep, State says "You GOTTA BUILD GREEN" completely overrides Provider's probelm of "How do
Re: But Nuclear is too expensive (Score:2)
It isn't Tesla's power plant (Score:1)
It's the customers equipment they paid full price for (and then some) not Tesla's. Tesla should have no role to play and certainly should not be financially rewarded.
You don't even need a battery to get kickbacks all you have to do is use less energy than you otherwise would. (e.g. PG&E's power saver rewards)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the customers equipment they paid full price for (and then some) not Tesla's. Tesla should have no role to play and certainly should not be financially rewarded.
Tesla's role is coordinating operation of the equipment. Someone has to do it. It could conceivably by managed directly by local utilities in the future, though.
You don't even need a battery to get kickbacks all you have to do is use less energy than you otherwise would. (e.g. PG&E's power saver rewards)
Yes, but this is providing power when it's needed most, as opposed to just any time the sun is shining. Both of those things are useful, in different ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's role is coordinating operation of the equipment. Someone has to do it. It could conceivably by managed directly by local utilities in the future, though.
There is no reason the grid can't provide require signaling. They already do this with AC coupled PV systems to get PV systems to back off and stop sending energy.
Yes, but this is providing power when it's needed most, as opposed to just any time the sun is shining. Both of those things are useful, in different ways.
I think there is a misunderstanding. My comment was about being rewarded for choosing to conserve energy at a certain time after receiving notification from the power company. This is not linked to PV or ESS.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the customers equipment they paid full price for (and then some) not Tesla's.
At no point was the equipment not the customers. At no point did Tesla take ownership away from the customer. Tesla bought power from them, completely voluntarily.
Tesla should have no role to play and certainly should not be financially rewarded.
What? You mean customers should not have any role when you sell something to them? Do you list something on ebay and then just log out and throw away your password?
You don't even need a battery to get kickbacks all you have to do is use less energy than you otherwise would. (e.g. PG&E's power saver rewards)
Show anywhere in PG&E's rewards that you get a benefit of $2/kWh.
Is your stupidity a medical condition or did you work hard to achieve it?
Re: (Score:2)
At no point was the equipment not the customers. At no point did Tesla take ownership away from the customer. Tesla bought power from them, completely voluntarily.
It's not about ownership it's about a middleman extracting value from the customers equipment they already paid for without doing anything of value in return for it.
Tesla should have no role to play and certainly should not be financially rewarded.
What? You mean customers should not have any role when you sell something to them? Do you list something on ebay and then just log out and throw away your password?
Sorry this makes no sense to me I have no idea what you are even trying to say.
The point is customers should be getting the full amount from the power company not Tesla. There is no reason the power company can't signal a request for energy and reward those who provide it. There is no need for Tesla to be in the loop.
Show anywhere in PG&E's rewards that you get a benefit of $2/kWh.
It's in the FAQ...
https:// [pge.com]
Or the power companies could do their job (Score:2)
but that is too much to ask when you live in a third world country.
16 MW?a drop in the ocean (Score:2)
A typical power plant is 1000 MW, 16 MW is scarcely noticeable. Good Tesla clickbait though.