We have this in CA. I have Tesla batteries and they promote wanting me to enroll my batteries into a larger grid so their capacity can be used during higher load events.
I thought it was a novel idea when I heard about it.
Tesla Electric customers report making as much as $150 a day: <a href="https://electrek.co/2023/07/05/tesla-electric-customers-report-making-150-day/" rel="nofollow">https://electrek.co/2023/07/05/tesla-electric-customers-repo...
for single individuals to earn as much as (i assume US$) 150 a day means that the grid is horrendously unbalanced.
hell if I emptied my 30kw into the grid in my state/country at the most expensive time I'd earn AU$21.00
to earn US$150 means either HUGE battery capacity (and transmission capacity) or utterly rediculous power pricing... both mean really lousy power supply and grid design.
I'm all for indipendance but the reality is we live in communities and count on the collective to rise us all up together.
that sort of profit is a clear warning sign of a broken community.
California rate payers are being forced to essentially pay for fire insurance for CA residents who live in tinderbox areas, by way of PG&E rates, and burying lines that serve widely dispersed populations. That's the big difference. The vast majority of US residents have much lower utility rates.
It depends a lot on the market, but before there were lots of batteries this was extremely typical in the Australian grid. You probably just weren't exposed to it as a consumer! Massive price fluctuations were the impetus for one of the first large scale grid batteries in Australia, and the batteries worked really well to solve it. It doesn't happen often, and nobody is getting paid $150 every day for their home battery. It's just for the extreme events.
As more and more batteries are deployed the price swings will decrease.
It's not a "broken community" it's just end consumers being able to help out in times of great grid need and getting compensated fairly for it.
It's more efficient for the grid to be very unbalanced every once in a while, rather than building so much it never happens.
And it's not a sign of a broken community. Those batteries aren't making all that much money on a per-year basis. And the earlier batteries into the system are going to make the most money. The more batteries that get built the smaller the profits will be and the better the entire grid will be.
Be more explicit. What is wrong with this? It's not all the time, it's only in times of extreme need.
Variable pricing like this enables all sorts of cost saving technologies that bring down the cost of the grid and generating power for everyone, by spending a lot for a very short time, instead of building tons of extra large assets that sit mostly idle.
If somebody is providing a service that operates on the whole sale market, they deserve to get paid like all the other generators that are helping to keep the grid running in these times of need.
And when the power lines fall down in rural areas, how will people heat and power their homes? I guess they could buy some batteries, but then they'd sit idle most of the time. Maybe they could find some other profitable use and share the capital cost?
> The people buying the batteries and the government's capital.
The former should be allowed to make their own decisions. I agree that the latter should probably be kept out of this: government is usually not very good at making these decisions. But alas, in many places they play a huge role in the electricity supply and distribution.
> The former should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Yes, but that's how we arrive to local economical maxima that are much, much closer to the global minimum that to the global maximum. The personal decisions aggregate, after all.
People are buying the batteries with their OWN capital, not Govts capital.
You say Govt capital which only benefits private utlities and ALSO say govt/utility should to build out the storage. Not sure what you are trying to say. You sound pretty confused.
In a lot of places the power companies are government owned and the private companies get massive amounts of captial from the government for buildouts.
It seems like an unreservedly good thing if people with home batteries can help prevent brownouts and reduce prices for everyone else. Also, I believe the $150/day figure was during a rare heatwave event when prices had surged to 100x their typical value ($5/kWh). It’s like any other investment where you outlay cash upfront and hope to make it back over time, whether via reduced costs for your own electricity usage or selling it back to the grid when doing so is profitable.
> Tesla Electric customers report making as much as $150 a day
Only on peak demand days, of which there are only a handful every year.
I have Enphase batteries enrolled in an equivalent program, so I've tracked how much I make. Definitely not enough to make much of a dent in the payoff time for the batteries. But a nice perk nonetheless.
California Virtual Power Plant, Tesla view: <a href="https://www.tesla.com/vpp/california" rel="nofollow">https://www.tesla.com/vpp/california
It is actually a pretty great way to address marginal demand spikes without overbuilding generation capacity. With the fringe bonus of local protection from short outages.
whartung · · focus · HN ↗
I thought it was a novel idea when I heard about it.
thelastgallon · · focus · HN ↗
senectus1 · · focus · HN ↗
it shouldnt be celebrated.
beering · · focus · HN ↗
senectus1 · · focus · HN ↗
hell if I emptied my 30kw into the grid in my state/country at the most expensive time I'd earn AU$21.00
to earn US$150 means either HUGE battery capacity (and transmission capacity) or utterly rediculous power pricing... both mean really lousy power supply and grid design. I'm all for indipendance but the reality is we live in communities and count on the collective to rise us all up together.
that sort of profit is a clear warning sign of a broken community.
ericd · · focus · HN ↗
epistasis · · focus · HN ↗
As more and more batteries are deployed the price swings will decrease.
It's not a "broken community" it's just end consumers being able to help out in times of great grid need and getting compensated fairly for it.
Dylan16807 · · focus · HN ↗
And it's not a sign of a broken community. Those batteries aren't making all that much money on a per-year basis. And the earlier batteries into the system are going to make the most money. The more batteries that get built the smaller the profits will be and the better the entire grid will be.
senectus1 · · focus · HN ↗
epistasis · · focus · HN ↗
Variable pricing like this enables all sorts of cost saving technologies that bring down the cost of the grid and generating power for everyone, by spending a lot for a very short time, instead of building tons of extra large assets that sit mostly idle.
If somebody is providing a service that operates on the whole sale market, they deserve to get paid like all the other generators that are helping to keep the grid running in these times of need.
thelastgallon · · focus · HN ↗
Not only do peaker plants make the most bucks/KWH, but they increase prices for all generation because of how auctions operate.
AuthAuth · · focus · HN ↗
thelastgallon · · focus · HN ↗
AuthAuth · · focus · HN ↗
The better option is for the government/utility company to build out the required storage for a fraction of the cost.
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Ex ante, sure. Right now, the existing batteries are a sunk cost the utility didn’t have to pay capital costs for. The right answer is to do both.
coryrc · · focus · HN ↗
eru · · focus · HN ↗
The former should be allowed to make their own decisions. I agree that the latter should probably be kept out of this: government is usually not very good at making these decisions. But alas, in many places they play a huge role in the electricity supply and distribution.
Joker_vD · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, but that's how we arrive to local economical maxima that are much, much closer to the global minimum that to the global maximum. The personal decisions aggregate, after all.
eru · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
thelastgallon · · focus · HN ↗
You say Govt capital which only benefits private utlities and ALSO say govt/utility should to build out the storage. Not sure what you are trying to say. You sound pretty confused.
AuthAuth · · focus · HN ↗
medler · · focus · HN ↗
imglorp · · focus · HN ↗
During peak need, renting some capacity from subscribers already on your grid means you don't need to build another peaker plant.
ihsw · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
thelastgallon · · focus · HN ↗
danans · · focus · HN ↗
Only on peak demand days, of which there are only a handful every year.
I have Enphase batteries enrolled in an equivalent program, so I've tracked how much I make. Definitely not enough to make much of a dent in the payoff time for the batteries. But a nice perk nonetheless.
andsoitis · · focus · HN ↗
loeg · · focus · HN ↗
m463 · · focus · HN ↗