Tesla Energy Reveals Powerpack Pricing, Starting From 200 kWh Of Storage

1 year ago by Mark Kane 45

Sprig Electric installs one of the first Tesla Powerpack commercial batteries at the Sprig Electric headquarters (Image courtesy Sprig Electric)

Sprig Electric installs one of the first Tesla Powerpack commercial batteries at the Sprig Electric headquarters (Image courtesy Sprig Electric)

Tesla Energy - Powerpack

Tesla Energy – Powerpack

Tesla Energy launched its online ordering site for the Powerpacks energy storage systems.

The smallest available ESS consists two 100 kWh Powerpacks (200 kWh total).

Design Your Powerpack System

Powerpack systems include one or more battery storage modules and supporting hardware, including inverters, combiners and cabling.

The 200 kWh/100 kW ESS costs some $162,000 all-in (a single Powerpack alone costs $47,000 or $470 per kWh), which translates to $810 per kWh for the whole complete system.

Industrial customers can scale Tesla ESS up adding more blocks, up to 54 Powerpacks in total (5,400 kWh total) combined with 10 bi-directional inverters (2.5 MW total) consumer.

In case of the 5,400 kWh/2,500 kW ESS costs are estimated at $3,217,000 or $596 per kWh total.

If you need even more energy or power output, then Tesla prefers to contact directly to them.

“Tesla Powerpack systems are infinitely scalable. Contact us and we will help you configure an ideal system.”

Tesla Energy - Powerpack

Tesla Energy – Powerpack

It was just a year ago when we were introduced to Tesla Energy’s Powerwall and Powerpack energy storage solutions (full launch details here).

Also bheck out the live debut presentation again in the video below:

Tesla Energy - Powerpack - Utility and Business Energy Storage

Tesla Energy – Powerpack – Utility and Business Energy Storage

Tesla Energy - Powerpack - Utility and Business Energy Storage

Tesla Energy – Powerpack – Utility and Business Energy Storage

Tags: , , , , , ,

45 responses to "Tesla Energy Reveals Powerpack Pricing, Starting From 200 kWh Of Storage"

  1. Apkungen says:

    That’s super expensive! What is this?

    1. sven says:

      No. That’s insanely expensive!

      No, no. That’s ludicrously expensive!

      No, no, no. That’s maximum plaid expensive!

      😉

      1. RexxSee says:

        The explanation could be simple. With the unexpected wild demand from Model 3, and the soaring price of lithium, Tesla decided that their secured lithium supply contracts were of better use dedicated to building cars instead of storage batteries. In this sector, the competition is plenty and *for real*, at the opposite of in the car sector where a cartel is still faking to compete and tries to kill or delay BEVs.

        Using the lithium for power packs was “Plan B” for Tesla. It is just another opportunity, not their main business for the expertise they developed.

        Musk did the same with Model X. He underestimated the demand for Model S and wanted a Plan B to make sure he sold enough cars to make his business grow.

        Lots of growing companies are now developing and selling Power Packs, without any pressure from Big Oil and Big Car.
        Since it is no longer critical for Tesla’s main mission (cleaning our atmosphere) to address this market, rising prices is a good way to lower demand.

  2. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

    So much for $250/kWh for the Powerpack.
    It’s more like the Powerwall pricing, so maybe they found that they can’t use the Panasonic cells for the cycling.

    I have no idea how that compares with other companies, but that doesn’t look in any way special.

    1. JakeY says:

      Yeah, it’s still better than the typical $500/kWh, but completely different than $250/kWh (which would have been a complete game changer).

  3. Ben says:

    What did you expect? A free lunch?

    1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      At the original presentation Elon Musk said they’d be $25k each, $250/kWh. That gave the impression of competitive advantage and put it well below the $350/kWh that ONCOR’s consultant suggested would be needed to make grid batteries mainstream. With actual pricing _much_ higher, the competitive advantage and impact is not there.

  4. Eco says:

    The EOS Energy Aurora ESS (Zinc-Air) is $160/kWh … about 1/3 of Tesla’s Powerpack.

    1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Cheap batteries, although the performance characteristics don’t look that great, including low efficiency and density. That makes sense, being a metal-air battery.

  5. Anon says:

    This is awesome. Hope it puts even MORE pressure on Panasonic to step up their investments in GF1.

  6. Cwuwlaw says:

    Am I missing something? A back up generator rated at 50kW goes for around $14,000, and is sized for a home – not commercial. This is more than 10x the cost, so it certainly doesn’t seem to make financial sense for back up power. We don’t have peak power pricing where I live. Are peak power prices really so much higher that it makes sense to use this to avoid the higher prices?

    1. Seth says:

      There is a market for “absorbing” energy from the grid and delivering it back to the grid when in need.

      It is generally reserved for utilities that use this for balancing consumption.

      Some other uses are using this to shave peak demand from their factory because they can not easily get a bigger grid tie or the costs for it are prohibitive.

      It’s not meant for backup.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Such systems are used for short term grid balancing. E.g. give extra few minutes to ramp up proper generator and avoid blackout. I don’t think there is any way to use it for peak price shaving on wide scale. You may calculate kWh or MWh price of electricity from this system if you know useful life and how many cycles it can do. Typically it comes at much higher price than peak/off-peak price differential. The same is for most alternative energy storage solutions. Power-to-gas makes much more sense when regular hydro stations are not available – it allows cheap season long energy storage using existing infrastructure.

    2. Josh Bryant says:

      A generator can’t service the ancillary services market on the grid. That is where the money is, not demand shifting.

      Private businesses will also want it for peak shaving to avoid demand chargers.

      Tesla is doing the math from value to the customer, not cost + margin.

    3. beta995 says:

      Having a home emergency generator, here’s what it’s like to actually run it.
      -Noise of a parked Diesel Tractor-trailor in your back yard.
      -Along with the stench of diesel, because they don’t burn efficiently, so gas, exhaust smells like diesel.
      -Not to mention the carbon-monoxide output.

      There is nothing cruder on the market.

      1. Priusmaniac says:

        Running on bioethanol is better on smell and renewable. You can also produce it on your own with left over fruits and a still.

      2. Bacardi says:

        Most elect to go Natural Gas, which eliminates the need to refuel them…Even if you can’t get NG in your area a lot of people have a propane tank installed so they don’t have to worry about re-fueling…

  7. Hykyrjoe says:

    Not for me…too much $$$$.. I’m not even sure the Powerwall makes financial sense … my solar is required to be grid connected.. so off grid and Powerwall is just not practical. . Gotta get that cost down dramatically. .

  8. Ambulator says:

    That’s not a competitive price. I don’t see how Tesla Energy is viable.

    1. cmina says:

      Could you please provide competitor prices for similar industrial solutions ?

      1. Priusmaniac says:

        Consulting Effekta could be interesting for 50 KW systems but I am not sure they make higher power.

        http://www.effekta.com.de/epages/63928138.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/63928138/Categories/USV_Stromversorgungen/ACUSV_Grossanlagen_6_kVA__500_kVA

  9. Bill Howland says:

    You would think Tesla, since they can give themselves the best pricing, would install one of these units in Southern California Edison or San Diego location superchargers where the demand charges are $20 per Kw the last time I checked.

    If they could conceivably lower their demands by $2000/month; $24,000 per year, then that is a payback of 8 years (figuring they can install it on the cheap) if the batteries last that long.

    Speaking of lowering demands, I wonder if Tesla ever thought of lowering the output of the supercharger station a bit overall if they were close to exceeding their historical demand for the month on one or two days? Hehe – I’m sure they’ve at least thought about it since I’m sure at certain locations they are getting tired of paying the huge electric bills, whether they list in the annual report that the costs are “Immaterial” or not, hehe.

    1. Josh Bryant says:

      JT Straubel mentioned that they started doing that in California over 2 years ago. I think that is where they started figuring out the business model for Tesla Energy.

    2. Cwuwlaw says:

      Add the cost of land and installation costs to set it up to you payback calculations…

    3. Barstow, California has had six Tesla 85kWh packs and solar for a couple years now.

  10. Alex says:

    BYD is cheaper and with LiFEPO4 the life will be minimum tripple.

  11. muchski says:

    It’s like a signature series powerpack! 😀

    Makes sense though, earn as much profit as they can on each powerpack until they see it lowers overall sales too much!

  12. R.S says:

    What makes the inverter so expensive? Especially at 250kW?

  13. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    $810 per kWh? Wow! That appears to be a non-competitive price. How disappointing. Yeah, I realize the $250/kWh figure previously touted was the (presumably estimated) cost, not the price; but I don’t think anyone was expecting the retail cost to be more than triple the touted figure!

    We’ve seen a lot of articles showing a lot of interest, and pre-orders, for PowerPacks. I predict most of those orders will be cancelled, with a price that high.

    🙁

    1. Ambulator says:

      The Bolt is $625/kWh, and it includes a free car!

      1. Speculawyer says:

        EXACTLY. Something is not right here. Maybe the actual battery packs are much bigger but the number they give is for the amount that they will allow the batteries to actually discharge in order to maximize their cycle life? Maybe these are just early prices and the price will come down.

        There is no way they can build the Model 3 will $600/KWH to $800/KWH battery packs.

    2. Jim Whitehead says:

      Perhaps they have rich 50% margins on Powerpacks, actual profits, to make up for losses selling the X cars this year.

    3. sven says:

      Pushmi-Pullyu said:
      “I predict most of those orders will be cancelled . . .”

      Didn’t you viciously attack a commenter in another article (Moop) who predicted that there would be cancelled orders?

      You said:
      “If Tesla says they’re sold out from online reservations, I rather suspect they know what they’re talking about. It doesn’t require witchcraft to figure the ratio between online reservations and actual sales, merely experience.”
      -Lensman (aka Pushmi-Pullyu) May 7, 2015 at 10:39 am

      “I wish there was a less rude cliche with the same meaning as “Teach your grandmother to suck eggs”, but there’s not, and it is staggeringly appropriate here.”
      -Lensman (aka Pushmi-Pullyu) May 7, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      Pushmi-Pullyu, it is staggeringly appropriate here to tell you to “Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.” Perhaps, you and nana should also take also up take up witchcraft as hobby.

      http://insideevs.com/tesla-powerwall-sold-mid-2016/#comment-677026

  14. Speculawyer says:

    Ouch. Those prices are disappointing. I realize these are much more than just the raw cells . . . the packaging, wiring, and cooling shouldn’t cost THAT much.

  15. Speculawyer says:

    I’ll say it . . . .

    With that kind of price, there is no way they can build the Model 3 and sell it for $35K!

    That is quite worrying.

    1. floydboy says:

      Are you saying this is the pricing of Model 3 batteries? How would you be privy to such information?

    2. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      I assume that those aren’t automotive cells. Automotive cells wouldn’t hold up to the cycling demands.

    3. JakeY says:

      These have absolutely nothing to do with the Model 3 cells. These are daily cycling cells that cost a lot more per kWh.

      Tesla seems to have abandoned the back power 10kWh version of the Powerwall (which used automotive cells). The Powerpacks however, always used daily cycling cells.

  16. Paul says:

    Don’t forget the GF is not up and running yet. There aren’t any raw materials going in on one side and finished packs coming out on the other. So this is the price NOW, without the future reduction in cost.

    Since for some tasks this price is already doable, they will have some sales and do some learning in this commercial market. It would not be wise to wait all the way till the GF is completely up and running.

  17. ModernMarvelFan says:

    $650K for 10 250KW inverters?

    That is $65K for a 250KW bi-directional inverters?

    Hm… Let us assume it is marked up 4x.

    The inverter still cost about $16.25K.

    250kW…. Isn’t that smaller than what Tesla uses in the motor drives?

    I hope it is 10x mark up, for Tesla sake.

  18. jh says:

    Reading the comments I would say that the wast majority doesn’t understand the differences between power levelling in big scale applications and car applications. They are very different indeed, and yes the prices are also very different.thid is not intended for the private small consumer customer.

  19. Speculawyer says:

    You know what just occurred to me . . . I think Tesla doesn’t want to sell PowerPacks or PowerWalls. They need the batteries for their Model S & Model X cars . . . and eventually the Model 3. So, if someone wants a Powerwall or PowerPack then prepare to pay a big amount. Otherwise, the cells are for the cars . . . that is their main business.

  20. Bella says:

    Great article about energy, it is awesome when yu get your energy from sun .

  21. Tman says:

    The pricing may seem high at $470 per kWh, but this might be due to rating the pack at usable capacity and not nominal capacity.

    If you look at the images from the pack assembly at the gig a factory, http://electrek.co/2016/03/19/leaked-tesla-gigafactory-pictures-powerwall-powerpack/

    The powerpack is made from 16 modules and each module is composed of Two Model S type modules.

    If we extrapolate, a 90kWh Model S has 16 of these modules. So each module contains roughly;
    90/16= 5.63kWh.

    A 100kWh powerpack contains 32 of these modules so the nominal capacity is;
    5.63*32= 180kWh

    Now price per Nominal kWh is;
    $47,000/180 = $261/kWh.

    At a price of $261/kWh, it’s very close to Elon’s initial promise of $250/kWh. From the numbers, it shows a 55% usable capacity. Tesla must have had to use a very low depth of charge in order to guarantee longevity in grid applications.

    1. Tman says:

      Doing the same for the powerwall. Each powerwall uses 1 of the Tesla energy modules compared to 16 for the Powerpack.

      And since each Tesla energy module contains 2 Model S modules, we get a nominal capacity of;
      5.63*2= 11.26kWh.
      @ $3000 a piece, that’s $266/kWh. Very similar to to Powerpack’s $261/kWh.