Tesla Powerwall 2 Now Shipping With 2170 Gigafactory Batteries Inside

1 month ago by Mark Kane 80

Tesla Powerwall 2.0

Tesla is finally ready to begin Powerwall 2 production and deliveries in earnest after fulfilling early batch of Powerpack 2 orders.

Both the Powerpack 2 and Powerwall 2 uses the companies new 2170 lithium-ion battery cells made at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada..

Tesla Powerwall 2.0

Production of 2170 started in December, with the initial plan to begin deliveries of the Powerwall 2 in January.

It seems however, Tesla was a little pre-occupied delivering large-scale energy storage solutions, like the 80 MWh (396 units of Powerpacks 2) for Southern California Edison, so Powerwall 2 sales were postponed a little bit.

According to Electrek’s sources, the number of pre-orders for Powerwall 2 is similar in size to the previous 38,000 pre-orders for Powerwall 1 (despite now the need for customers to place $500 deposits).

Tesla Powerwall 2.0 Specs

source: Electrek

Tags: , , , , ,

80 responses to "Tesla Powerwall 2 Now Shipping With 2170 Gigafactory Batteries Inside"

  1. Get Real says:

    Can’t wait to see the shills, shorters and haters try and deny the importance of this product to Tesla’s growth potential.

    1. needa says:

      Can’t wait for people like you to stop giving a crap about the shills, shorters, FUD, etc.
      “Look how cool I am. I will constantly post the same thing on every blog post. That way everyone will know that I am a TRUE Tesla fan.”

      1. Get Real says:

        needa huh?

        No surprise at yet another new username registered by the usual suspect(s)!

        Albeit this time to complain about my preemptory throwing down the gauntlet to the individual(s), I’m sure its a small number overall, that constantly try and spread FUD here over all things Tesla.

  2. Anon says:

    There you go, Sven! Why don’t you buy one now?

    Far better and safer than an hydrogen cell at home…

  3. leafowner says:

    Keep them 2170 cells for Model 3 production!!!

    1. Anon says:

      No. The more they make, the cheaper they get.

      That’s how economics (economies of scale) works…

      http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economiesofscale.asp

      Model 3 __Betas__ probably won’t be ready till Feb 22nd or later, in time for the “Third Reveal”; probably March 31st of this spring.

      1. georgeS says:

        since when did they become beta cars Anon?

        Got a link?

        1. Jake says:

          Beta refers to what state in production a car is. In any mass production effort, after you get everything down, you do a small production and then test the s*** out of them to see if there needs to be any final tweaks. So there’s no this is not some change, is just a normal step before mass production begins.

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          It automotive it is called a bit differently. E.g. it may be Integration Vehicle Engineer Release as in GM prototyping stages, assuming mules were disguised as Model S or 2 driveable mules were just enough. GM stages:
          1. Mule, may have other car body
          2. Integration Vehicle Engineer Release – to test integration of all components together, that is not possible at mule stage
          3. Production Process Validation – to test manufacturing process and car functionality
          4. Manufacturing Validation Build – not for sale at the beginning, then goes into normal production.

          http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/gmi-goes-inside-gm-prototyping-stages-96009/

          All this process takes over a year. Sure, new brave world needs not stinky legacy testing and can fix all hardware issues with OTA updates!

          1. Gasbag says:

            @zzzzzz

            That link is from 2003! In that era the development cycle for GM et al was 10 years!!!
            1 year was 10% of that. Now GM’s design cycle is 4-5 years. Proportionally 10% of that is 5-6 months.

          2. Roy_H says:

            No. 2 would be alpha in your list.
            No. 3,4 would be beta cars.
            Tesla skips No. 3.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Well of course, we can hope the Gigafactory will make enough cells to fill both needs. But if not, then absolutely Leafowner is right: Priority should be given to Model 3 production over PowerWalls and PowerPacks.

        1. Anon says:

          Solar / Home Battery demand will also be building as M3 (shh, bmw lovers) ramps up this year. Large Grid Scale Projects have already caused some product delays, but there should be enough 2170’s with EV Specific Chemistry (not home / grid use chemistry) for the near term.

          Then, probably sometime next year, MS and MX get their own updated 2170 based packs with improved chemistry… That’s a lot of batteries.

          Eventually, other GF’s will be needed…

          1. Elon has already said that cells for Model 3 Production, will be started up in 2nd Quarter of 2017, since there was also a big demand for energy storage, and Tesla probably is in 100% of control of the Energy products, downstream from those new Panasonic Built, Tesla Designed and Defined Cells!

      3. needa says:

        Keeping them for Mod3 production doesn’t mean they have to stop making them.

    2. Gasbag says:

      You guys are kidding right? This is the Giga factory not the Mega factory. 10-20 MWhr of battery will cover your 200-300 M3s.

  4. Bill Howland says:

    Actually, depending on the price it looks like an attractive product to me.

    I wonder if SVEN lives in a single family home that he owns. If he does, it would be to his advantage to have some solar panels installed. The payback – displacing 31.5 cent/ kwh electricity would only be around 4 years.

    But as a NY state Net-metered customer, its illegal for me to install any batteries. Of course, using the utility as a piggy bank is even better since its like having batteries for free.

    1. EVA-01 says:

      Can you elaborate on your last paragraph please? I’m highly curious on the subject.

      Is it legal to build a home, in NY state or NYC, that is just running on solar panels and a battery? When I say build a home, I mean buying a plot of empty land and building from scratch.

      1. unlucky says:

        Yes. You just can’t have net metering and batteries. He could install batteries and give up net metering.

        You’re not allowed to have net metering and batteries because the net metering rates are only for green generated electricity. If you have a battery you could instead arbitrage their own dirty electricity back to them.

        Honestly, you shouldn’t need net metering if you have batteries. Just save your own for later. There is a financial cost to this though, solar is often generated at peak times and saving it for later is less financially advantageous than selling excess at peak rates and buying back and nighttime rates.

        Over time as more solar is installed the peak rates won’t line up with peak solar times anymore anyway, so this issue will go away.

        1. EVA-01 says:

          Just for my own clarification, would my home still be attached to the electrical grid even though it is powered by solar panels and a battery?

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Very few homes which are attached to the grid when built are disconnected from the grid because of a solar power installation.

            The cost/benefit analysis favors installing just enough to power your home when it’s drawing a lot of energy. That may be just during the day but not at night, or it may be for sunny days but not cloudy ones.

            It costs X amount per watt. If you were to go entirely off-grid, it would cost you just as much for that last, least-used 10%, as for the first, most-used 10%. That last 10% would be used only on the shortest, most heavily overcast winter days. Yet the cost for that would be just as high as the first 10% that you’d use every day, yet the payoff on that last 10% would happen on only a few days a year. It just makes more sense, economically, to rely on the grid for those last few hours of night-time supply per day, or rely on it for those last few days per year when it’s heavily overcast or when snow covers your roof.

            Generally speaking, the only homes which are entirely off-grid are cabins built in remote areas far from the electrical grid.

            Unfortunately, as Bill Howland and Unlucky have pointed out, the fact that your home is connected to the grid unfortunately, in some regions, local or State laws and/or regulations allow the local utility to tell you what you can and can’t do with a solar power installation in your own home.

            This situation is particularly bad in Hawaii, where there are so many people wanting to install solar power that the local utilities can’t handle it, and so only a few customers are allowed to install their solar power systems at the same time. Everybody else has to wait, and wait…

            1. Steven says:

              Funny you should mention Hawaii…
              I know someone living near Hilo, by a coffee plantation. She tells me that although the “main production building” is on the grid, all of their out-buildings are either wind or solar, and (obviously) have no connection to the grid.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                If those “out-buildings” are used only during the daytime, never at night, then it might well be cost-effective to make them 100% solar powered. No batteries needed for night-time storage of electricity.

                The practicality of wind power is much more questionable. Home wind turbine installations typically only produce 1-2% of a home’s power needs, so that seems to be more of a feel-good thing than something that makes a serious impact on energy usage.

                Of course, a commercial installation could use multiple wind turbines, perhaps even an entire wind farm, as is planned for Tesla’s Gigafactory 1. But then, that takes a lot of land that generally can’t be used for anything else. I dunno what the cost of real estate in Hawaii is, but I do know they no longer grow sugar cane there because of rising land values.

                Still, it may make sense to install a wind farm onshore in Hawaii in terrain unsuited for farming or housing.

          2. unlucky says:

            It depends. You would like it to be, because as Pushmi-Pullu covers it would be more expensive to have enough battery and array to cover your usage in lean times.

            There really would be two options. First is off-grid. The other is you would be grid-tied but you can’t sell anything back, trade anything back and technically you’re not even supposed to send anything back (not use grid for a dump load). How strict they would be about this in the latter case I couldn’t say. In the grid-tied case you could draw energy when you run low due to short days (winter), clouds or just plain not having enough generation (maybe you had guests over for the week and increased your usage).

        2. Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart says:

          I’m no expert but I believe a behind-the-meter battery can provide value to the electrical system in multiple ways, from storing locally produced PV power, to smoothing electricity needs and providing “peak” power. I was just looking at regulation in Australia and they have several VPP – Virtual Power Plant – projects that leverage that arrangement.

          I did a quick pass at PG&E docs and I believe they have a more lenient policy – I’ll do a second pass tomorrow.

          In general, I hope we (the US) move towards facilitating this type of arrangement.

          1. unlucky says:

            Some states are more lenient in this way. I believe California and Hawaii both changed their rules to allow storage on site with generation under certain restrictions.

            Putting a meter to distinguish generation from battery isn’t super practical with a Powerwall. Powerwall is designed to go between your solar array and your solar inverter. It then is charged with DC from the array and disgorges DC to the inverter. There is no AC portion to meter between the battery and the solar panels.

            It would seem this configuration would mean the Powerwall can’t even charge from AC, meaning it couldn’t let you arbitrage at all. So perhaps I’m wrong about the suggested configuration. But either way, if the utility trusted Tesla’s system to accurately indicate what power is coming from battery and what from solar then they could safely allow storage and generation without risk of paying green prices for arbitraged power.

            This would be a new step, generally utilities do not trust any meter other than their own, even “utility-grade” metering. If utilities began to believe in 3rd party meters then it would make having separate billing for EV charging and the rest of house much easier by just having the EVSE provide a utility-grade metering report.

            1. Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart says:

              Thanks for the pointer. I’ll poke around the web later today/tomorrow and will post if I find additional useful links.

            2. Ken Rogers says:

              From what I’ve heard the Powerwall 2’s are AC, not DC.
              https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/tesla-kills-off-dc-powerwall-2-ac-version-delayed/

        3. Someone out there says:

          I find the micro-grid concept very interesting, where a block of houses come together to share let’s say one or two Tesla Powerpacks. The resident’s solar panels feed the community battery during the day and then they draw what they need during the night with a macro-grid connection as a backup. This would allow for the most flexible arrangement and it’s something that could play nicely with the utility.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            That’s a concept I find very promising, too. It might work well in suburbs where there’s a neighborhood home owners’ compact, and it might work well in urban neighborhoods where everybody is eager to share to reduce costs.

            Unfortunately, the typical American traits of independence and “exceptionalism” work against anything seen as being a “cooperative” or — gasp! — “communist”.

  5. georgeS says:

    Bill,
    “But as a NY state Net-metered customer, its illegal for me to install any batteries”

    Agreed Bill,
    I was thinking perhaps just cutting my house in half. In essence cutting the cord with the electric company and just doing that cut off half myself with panels and batteries. It would be an interesting experiment and the utility company can’t say anything about it as far as I know.

    If I ran out of juice I’d just run a temp jumper cord from the utility side…..but please don’t tell. I bet that would be illegal:)

    1. no comment says:

      i suspect that the building codes people might have a lot to say about your plans, even if the utility company doesn’t.

      1. GeorgeS says:

        no comment,
        “i suspect that the building codes people might have a lot to say about your plans, even if the utility company doesn’t.”

        Why? They are 2 separate system. Each built to the code.

        1. Anon says:

          Because Temp Jumper Cables probably are not…

        2. no comment says:

          the people in the building codes department are probably not going to be willing to take your word for it. they are going to want to see the plan, where actual implementation of the plan would be subject to approval of the plan.

        3. Nix says:

          Emergency Responders expect the whole house to be powered off when the main breaker is flipped off. Not half the house, and the other half hot.

          1. So does all this concern over home batteries extrend to Computer UPS’s? Little Battery boxes thst give you 5 to 20 minutes to smoothly shut down your computer?

            What about Businesses that have Large UPS for emergency Lighting? Or to keep a series of computers running in a render farm?

            So, what if you built a Power Time Shift Battery to charge up at the lowest rates, for… say…a fridge, and the fridge used grid power during that time, but switched to battery power when grid rates were higher?

            1. no comment says:

              all that stuff involves installing wiring at the location. you had better believe that if you have to install wiring, you are going to need to get a permit. in my city, there is one group that deals with permits for construction and another group that deals with permits for electrical work.

  6. no comment says:

    i think that in reality the powerwall is 14kWh which can be operated at 95% DoD, i am not aware of any battery that can be run to absolute 100% DoD without ruining the battery.

    one thing that i have never been able to understand is the 10 year warranty on a battery that, from what i have been able to determine, has a 1,000 to 1,500 cycle lifetime. that’s more like 5 years than 10. i assume that there is some fine print in the tesla warranty.

    the economics of a dedicated behind the meter energy storage system don’t really add up. if you assume a powerwall cost of $5,500 and an installation cost of about $1,000, that gets you a levelized cost of $0.35 to $0.55 per kWh, and that’s before you include the cost of solar panels. i can’t imagine any area in the united states for which that is a better economic deal than buying energy off the grid.

    there are non-economic factors that can enter into consideration, including laudable environmental objectives. but you can see why the adoption of clean energy is highly reliant of government subsidies to make these alternatives economically viable.

    1. Tim Eckel says:

      Exactly, this isn’t cost effective at all. This is only for tree huggers with deep pockets who feel guilty about their money and this is how they waste it.

      1. David Cary says:

        A little harsh. There is proof of concept folks as well as people frustrated with the deal that their utility gives them. There can be a rational cost effective argument for peak shaving. I pay 6 cents but my peak is $5 a month so a few kwh a month are very expensive indeed!

    2. Gasbag says:

      > the economics of a dedicated behind the meter energy storage system don’t really add up. if you assume a powerwall cost of $5,500 and an installation cost of about $1,000, that gets you a levelized cost of $0.35 to $0.55 per kWh, and that’s before you include the cost of solar panels.

      What formula are you using? In its most basic form LCOE is Total Cost of energy divided by the total energy produced. The Powerwall doesn’t produce energy so it seems a bit difficult to compute LCOE without factoring in the energy producing system.

      1. no comment says:

        as i stated, i did not include the cost of the solar panels, which would meet the requirement that you stated. i just included the cost of the energy storage component. as i also stated, i assumed a 1,000 to 1,500 cycle life for the energy storage system. the specification information from tesla states that the round trip efficiency is 90%.

        1. Tom says:

          You are correct on the costs not working out in any normal sense but perhaps add a few other angles/possibilities depending on the utility.
          1. Green Mountain Energy is taking an interesting approach which might catch on. They are encouraging/cooperating/controlling the Tesla boxes. Yes they are using renewables but renewable power then isn’t necessary at that point to make sense. It becomes a peak shaving mechanism where if the utility can control it like they already do (my hot water heater is an example where they shut the thing off just when I need it!) then in fact the utility can recharge the powerwall over night at low end demand to make it available for peak demand the next day. In this regard the per kwh rate shave may make it come into a cost range that matters.

          2. Places like Hawaii where power is very expensive. Same with caribbean islands. These places ship in diesel and burn it. Adding a battery to solar makes sense (many not net metered) in some of those high cost areas perhaps….or at least approaches it. A guy I know lives in a place like this in Arizona. (I might have specifics wrong). No net metering but high peak demand pricing. Right now that effect is so high he does stuff like turn his air conditioner to like 68 all day then when high energy prices kick in around early evening, he shuts the air conditioning off to ‘coast’. Apparently such a big difference in power price that it pays out.

          3. Dual use. The new Tesla roof stuff is too expensive as solar panels and as roof tiles are also too expensive and in his talk, Elon Musk said don’t run out and replace your roof with this stuff. But he said if you are replacing it anyway or building new then you get closer to parity there by getting two birds/one stone. Here one of the costs it replaces is backup generator or whole house UPS. I’ve been wanting a whole house UPS anyway. Most power ‘outages’ aren’t outages. They are spikes or temporary blips or stuff that lasts a few minutes. During these spikes you get severe stress to your electronics. Everything from lightbulbs to refrigerators. We think TVs and computers but this other stuff gets that stress too. Implemented correctly, home batter packs could buffer load, smooth spikes, and perform line cleaning as well as replace a backup generator. That probably justifies the cost all by itself if you were going to implement that kind of thing anyway. I know people that have spent thousands on systems that wouldn’t work as well.

          1. Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart says:

            Agreed! If interested in the topic, here is a report of a very recent blackout in South Australia. There was a heat wave that caused a spike in power consumption. Several power generators were offline and wind – a big source in SA – dropped. The HVDC link out of SA was under threat and the operator requested a cut of 100MW (which ended up 300MW).

            A VPP – Virtual Power Plant – arrangement could pull energy from the batteries to help address the surge in demand.

            http://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/System-event-report-South-Australia-8-February-2017

          2. Gasbag says:

            >Here one of the costs it replaces is backup generator or whole house UPS. I’ve been wanting a whole house UPS anyway.

            You may not need to accommodate the whole house. My house is at the edge of the grid in a low density residential area so we always are the lowest priority for restoring power. I have a UPS that keeps my Phones, Internet, network & WIFI up at my house. It lasts for less than 2 hours but that is usually long enough.

            1. Tom says:

              As a (former) military IT guy who deployed crazy crap like racks of servers off the back of a Humvee, your cell phone is the least of your worries. You speak of a UPS with respect to backup power. That’s an important issue but the far more costly issue of fluctuating power generally happens silently. That is the shortening of the life of everything plugged in. Not just from a holdup battery perspective but a line cleaning and surge protection perspective. Lights flickering in a thunderstorm are way more damaging than people give it credit for. Granted electronics, lightbulbs, etc have become so reliable most people don’t notice any more but it’s still there and depending on region of the country way more prevalent to have simple things like inconsistent voltage on the line.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                So are you saying that it would pay the average home owner to install a power conditioner? And how much would it cost to do that for a whole house?

                I know that a power conditioner is something that high-end home theatre systems use, but I don’t think I’ve read anything about people using that sort of thing to protect their entire house.

            2. Tom says:

              Think of the scenario where the power pops up and down 3 or 4 times then goes out for 5 minutes then back on then off then back on. Then off. Then is stays out. With something similar to a powerwall all you’d probably get is a text message or something that the power is going nuts. Then if power stays disconnected you can walk over to the breaker and take out the loads one at a time in a planned fashion. Flick off the hot water heater, don’t run that load of laundry, maybe shut the air conditioning off, etc but leave the refrigerator/freezer up. 14 KWH might last a day or better if necessary that way while not being sudden or stressful to components. Then if it drags on you could fire up a $500 gasoline portable generator that could easily plug straight into a powerwall type device to charge it. i.e. don’t fire that thing up until the wall gets to like 20% or something. That way the small generator could also provide indirectly stepped up amperage where necessary in the house without having an expensive device and voila you have a pretty fancy hybrid backup generator system.

              1. guyinacar says:

                “Flick off the hot water heater?” Photovoltaic to any kind of battery storage, then to resistive domestic hot water (DHW) is an inferior design. I hope you’re not using that. Just install solar DHW, as I mentioned above. ROI can be like 4 years.

                GSHP with an electric scroll compressor would be slightly more sane to drive with a battery, but still very expensive. At least you have leverage there, which is why off-gridders like it.

                You’d be looking at ROI in decades for resistive DHW on a PowerWall. Simple resistive “tankless” is the opposite of efficient, the marketing message notwithstanding (yes, a resistive coil is 100% “efficient” but that’s playing word games). The most efficient system is a big thermal storage (water) tank with a large delta-t to your roof manifold. Let the sun do the work.

                But I digress…

          3. no comment says:

            i should note that i stated that i did not account for tax credits, rebates and energy credits that you could conceivably get by installing a pv/ess. my point is that these incentives are pretty much essential to have any chance of making an economically viable case.

            on the other hand, if home owners can turn their ess’ into a source of revenue during times when they aren’t using the ess, that can help increase the value of installing such a system. to that extent, i think that the people in vermont are on the right track. as i recall, users agree to allow the vermont utility to draw power from their behind the meter ess’. this turns the home owner into an energy supplier, such that the home owner can realize economic gain from the ess in addition to offsetting his own energy use.

        2. Gasbag says:

          Ok. Got it. So those 1,500 cycles are deep cycles. You do know that if you don’t deep cycle it the life of the battery can last significantly longer right? A typical lead acid car battery can only be deep cycled 10-15 times before it will need to be replaced. If it is good for 10-20 starts without recharging then your logic would calculate it is only good for 100-300 starts. I’ve had car batteries that were good for over 10,000 starts.

          Your cost/benefit assessment seems to be based solely on the market value of the power it stores. Recently here in Northern California we’ve had multiple cases where businesses lost power and were missing out on thousands of dollars per hour of revenue because they didn’t have backup power for their PBX or POS systems. There are a lot of use cases where the PW2 makes financial sense.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Car starter batteries are not deep cycle batteries, and will fail rapidly if used as such. There are deep cycle lead-acid batteries; those are used in, for example, golf carts and electric forklifts. Deep cycle lead-acid batteries are typically cycled to 50% power, then recharged, for maximum life.

            But what we’re talking about here, for Tesla PowerWalls and PowerPacks, is lithium-ion batteries. A few years ago the rule of thumb was to cycle li-ion batteries to 80% depth of discharge (DOD), for best battery life. I’ve seen recent claims of even deeper DOD; 90% or perhaps even more. I’m not sure those claims are correct, but perhaps so. I do recall apparently well-informed claims that NMC batteries (li-ion battery cells using Nickel Manganese Cobalt oxide chemistry) can be successfully cycled deeper, so perhaps newer batteries are using that chemistry or something similar.

            However, be aware that what is described as the “capacity” for a li-ion battery pack may not be the full capacity. It may be the “usable capacity”, where the manufacturer has electronically limited the top level of charge the battery pack will accept, to extend battery life. That applies to EVs, and for all I know it may apply to Tesla PowerWalls, too. So if someone claims to be cycling a li-ion battery pack (such as a PowerWall) at 100% capacity, they almost certainly aren’t actually doing that. Actually cycling a li-ion battery pack to 100% would wear out the pack quickly indeed, even if it uses NMC chemistry. Most likely they’re cycling to 100% of usable capacity, which will be somewhat less than 100% of total capacity.

            1. Gasbag says:

              @P-P

              Thank you for taking the time to explain that. It is known and understood. It does not change the validity of my point which is that his calculation is only valid if that matches his utilization profile and that the cost of the power is the only significant benefit he derives. There are many use cases where the modeled usage is invalid and the market value of the energy stored is inconsequential.

          2. no comment says:

            “deep cycle” is kind of a lead acid battery concept and the tesla powerwall is a lithium ion chemistry. you will notice that the specifications states 13.5 kWh at 100% DoD, but it is actually 14 kWh at 95% DoD.

            as to battery backup use, i would think that would be one of the lowest value applications for behind the grid, at least in a residential setting since the grid in the US is pretty stable.

            1. Gasbag says:

              In a residential setting it doesn’t have to make financial sense anymore than Ludicrous mode needs to make financial sense.

              In some business settings it could pay for itself if it is used but once. Assuredly the costs will continue to decline and the financially viable applications will increase.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “no comment said:

          “as i stated, i did not include the cost of the solar panels… i just included the cost of the energy storage component.”

          Yes, “no comment”, but your thumbnail analysis appears to have the premise that all the power for the home is going to be stored in the PowerWall(s) on a daily basis, and that the batteries will be cycled for the entire energy use of the house on a daily basis.

          Not so. A battery backup only makes sense as part of a solar power installation, where most of the power is going to be used directly to power the home when the sun is shining. The battery backup would only be used at night and/or for emergency backup in case of grid power failure. So it would be better to average the cost per kWh over a typical day’s use, or over a typical year’s use. The per-kWh cost for using electricity directly from the solar panels will be much, much lower than using it from the batteries; the average cost will be significantly lower.

          Now, “no comment”, if your argument is that it makes no economic sense to use a stationary storage system to store electricity during the daytime to charge your BEV at night, then I entirely agree. That may be something that a very dedicated “greenie” would do, but only one with “more dollars than sense”, as they say. It would be an admirable sacrifice of money for the sake of the environment, but we can’t expect the average person to do that; not even the average person who owns both a BEV and a home solar power installation.

          Of course, when the cost of batteries comes down far enough, then the cost/benefit analysis will change. If and when batteries become cheap enough, it may make sense to charge your BEV using power stored in your home energy storage system. That will come sooner in areas with more expensive grid electricity.

          1. no comment says:

            p2,

            you have made assumptions that are substantially incorrect. i was not referring to a battery backup application, i was referring more to an “off the grid” (semi or full) application. in such an application, the solar panel would generate power for the house, but instead of sending surplus into the grid for net metering, the surplus power would be stored in the battery. then, at night you would use the stored energy from the battery. so the economic comparison would be the cost of the pv/ess system for generating and storing energy versus the cost from getting energy from the grid. conceivably, if you only wanted to analyze the ess piece of the puzzle more completely, you would include the costs of only a portion of the total pv system. but the point is, the cost of the total system is going to be greater than the cost of the ess alone.

            the scenario of using a dedicated ess to recharge a bev is so ridiculous that i would have never suggested such a thing. i have never read of anyone who suggested such an application. i mean, the bev has a battery. duh!

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              “ess” = energy storage system?

              Using one battery (or capacitor) pack to charge another used to be a frequent topic of discussion on the now-defunct TheEEStory forum, but perhaps it hasn’t been discussed much elsewhere.

              The scenario is that the PEV (Plug-in EV) is not at home during the day because it’s out being used for a commute or running errands, and it needs to be charged at night. In fact, I think we can all agree that night-time charging of a PEV is pretty commonplace; there is lots of discussion about the night-time differential in grid energy cost for charging your car.

              The concept of using one battery pack to charge another has to be considered for anyone who is thinking about going entirely off-grid and drives a PEV. How are you gonna charge that PEV at night if you can’t use your stationary battery pack to charge it?

              Again, I’m not suggesting that would be a cost-effective solution. I’m pointing out that the need to charge a PEV at night would make going entirely off-grid even more impractical and unaffordable for the average person.

              Contrariwise, if you can charge your PEV during daylight hours, so you don’t need to draw from a stationary battery pack, it makes a lot more sense.

          2. Everyone assumes every EV user works Days! I work Midnights, and many others do too, besides Factory workers, there are Nurses, Firemen, Police, EMS, and more! So, all of us could charge directly from day time solar, likely at least 6-8 months out of the year!

      2. tosho says:

        Most new li-ion batteries should be able to make 2000 full cycles. Or the equivalent of 4000 cycles if you only do half-cycles and keep them between 20% and 80%.

    3. Someone out there says:

      They are counting on the customers not fully cycling the battery every night. You are right that it doesn’t always add up, it depends very much on your location and the electricity rates.

      I personally like the idea of microgrids where a block of houses connects their solar panels to a bigger, shared battery. That way it dynamically adjusts according to everyone’s need. With a connection the macrogrid you can then receive cheap night time energy if there is an unexpected surge at night or the macrogrid operator could use the microgrid to handle peak demand during the day. Everyone wins.

  7. unlucky says:

    This is really great. Tesla never came close to fulfilling all their Powerwall 1 orders. I hope that isn’t the case with Powerwall 2. More adoption is better.

    Battery systems just don’t make sense for residential customers financially. Not as long as we have the net metering subsidy. I wish more states would move away from full-retail net metering so we can jumpstart the adoption of home energy storage.

    1. Anon says:

      V2 is much better, anyways…

  8. guyinacar says:

    Anybody who buys this to save money is making some rather optimistic ROI assumptions, IMHO.

    It can certainly do some cool stuff, though. From what I read, it can apparently operate at 100% relative humidity, condensing. That’s pretty slick. Might it be nice to have on a sailboat or houseboat?

    It’s safe to the touch, which beats the hell out of a bank of car batteries. It apparently doesn’t off-gas any hydrogen, which is, y’now, highly explosive in your basement. It’s also small and elegant enough to not be in your basement in the first place.

    It also doesn’t need to be kept flooded, so it’s relatively low maintenance. So if your off-grid Big Sky ranch needs to be repowered, this may be the thing. Or maybe backup power for elevators and emergency lighting in an urban context?

    But if you’re just looking to save a few bucks – and assuming you take showers – residential solar hot water (SHW/DHW) probably has far better ROI in many parts of North America than load-shifting at this price.

    I actually think this might be more interesting in other parts of the world where power is available daily, though perhaps not consistently. A lot of those places run crappy little generators at street level, generators that belch blue filth, chiefly to pump water up to the roof tank (for water pressure), and for refrigeration of things like medicine. The world needs PowerWalls too.

    1. unlucky says:

      Even with optimistic projections it’s hard to see any payback on these at all. For many solar customers it actually reduces their net metering subsidy and thus costs them money.

      The only way these really make money right now is by avoiding demand charges. And most residential customers don’t have to pay demand charges. Although Arizona (SRP customers, IIRC) is the exception and these may find a place there.

    2. guyinacar says:

      Presumably the obvious use-case (and likely the original idea on the drawing board many years ago) is as a garage capacitor for a EV, one that can trickle charge over the course of a day, as power fluctuates up or down (e.g., photovoltaic), or even by being limited to 5-10A on a 120v circuit, so it won’t pop the breaker or overload it beyond 80%. Then it can fill the vehicle at 5kW for a little over two hours (more if ganged), which might be 8x faster than trickle charging a PHEV at 120v on the same wire. That’s a pretty good storage solution for PHEV charging in scenarios where 120v is available to the garage, but a 40A or 80A circuit can’t easily be run, like mine. It’s like an electron reservoir, serving the same purpose as a carbon-fiber flywheel generator, only cheaper.

      There’s a market for that. Still, the price point is prohibitive for that use-case today. It’s cheaper to run new service/mains, and perhaps even a new utility pole or two.

      Actually, as I think about this: welders might want it just as much as EV owners.

  9. John wilson says:

    2170 lithium batteries – Are they now being installed in current builds of model s & x. If not when will they become standard in model s & x battery packs?

    John Wilson
    NYC

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      No.

      Not until after Tesla starts selling the Model 3. No target date for that switch has been announced.

      Tesla is going to want as much of the production of 2170 cells from Gigafactory 1 to go into Model 3’s as possible. The very last thing Tesla would want to happen is for production of Model 3’s to be held up because of diverting batteries for Model S/X production. Everybody talks about the price reduction and/or energy density improvement from Gigafactory 1 production, and what almost everybody ignores is that the most important (altho unstated) reason Tesla is building Gigafactory 1 is to ensure a supply for Model 3 batteries which won’t constrain production; won’t constrain production in the way that limited battery supply has in the past constrained Model S production.

      Only when Tesla is sure there is sufficient excess production of 2170 cells, comfortably beyond what it needs for the Model 3 plus a safety margin, will it start switching Model S and/or X production to using 2170 cells.

      1. Gasbag says:

        The beauty of the PowerPack line is that it allows Tesla to ramp up production as fast as they can without concerns for having a market for their product. That problem is what brought down A123 Systems. In addition to mitigating being battery constrained for their EVs the PowerPacks will be generating profits and more importantly at this stage significant cash flow. If the model3 were to experience significant delays the Model 3 battery allocation could be redirected to PowerPacks. If additional capital is needed to fuel 2018 expansion Tesla should have little problem raising it.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          That’s exactly how I see it. Tesla created the PowerWall and PowerPack as a secondary market for Gigafactory cells, so they would have a ready market for any excess capacity beyond what they need for the Model 3. That’s a hedge against any delay in putting the Model 3 into production; it creates a market to sell Gigafactory cells to, instead of just warehousing them for future Model 3 production.

          So as I see it, those claims that Tesla Energy is or soon will be more important than Tesla Motors, are just hype. It may be that someday, grid energy storage will be an even bigger market for batteries than PEVs. But I seriously doubt grid storage is going to be served well by li-ion batteries. I think a more cost-effective solution will be found. Li-ion batteries are great where high energy density and relatively high power are needed, such as in a BEV. But li-ion batteries are a poor fit to grid energy storage, where high amounts of energy stored at very low per-kWh cost, and only moderate power levels (in relation to the amount of energy stored), are needed, and where size and weight are relatively unimportant.

      2. As to when will the Model S & Model X get the 2170 cells for customer orders, we all by now should be aware that there are on the order of 400,000+ Model 3 Reservations, with a possibility of over 500,000 resevations, even before the Feb 22nd Final report for Tesla’s 2016 year, and expected Reveal Part 3 for the Model 3!

        Also, if you check the Tesla Model 3 page, just below the $35,000 price, it says “Delivery estimate for new reservations is mid 2018 or later.”

        With that in mind, you can also remember, Elon has been consistently stating that GF1 will 1st build cells for Tesla Energy Products, then for Model 3 product, and then, finally for the S & X!

        So, with those two pieces of info, you can expect that retail versions of 2170 cells for the Model S & X will be around summer to fall of 2018, at the earliest! Or, abour after those current 400,000-500,000 Model 3’s are shipped and delivered!

        Probably you will see a Model Y 1st Reveal before 2170 cells are in the S & X!

        Elon has also stated that 100 kWh is as big as they currently are going to ship, outside of for the Semi and the Pickup, so no rush to put more in the S & X at this point!

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Elon has been consistently stating that GF1 will 1st build cells for Tesla Energy Products, then for Model 3 product, and then, finally for the S & X!”

          Well, “1st” for Tesla Energy, because the Model 3 isn’t yet in production.

          As I understand it, the Model 3 will get priority for those cells once it goes into production.

          If you have a quote from Elon that states otherwise, a quote which states priority will be given to Tesla Energy products, I’d be very interested to see it. That would be very far from my understanding for the reason Tesla spent billions of dollars to build Gigafactory 1.

  10. John Brophy says:

    I built my house 15 years ago in Los Angeles and put 18 solar panels, inverter, 8- 6 volt batteries with a Back-up Controller. I am connected to the Utility Grid. I paid $20,000 for the Solar system, $5,000 for the battery backup and it has been on Net-Metering with So Cal Edison. It has paid for itself and now I went from $120/mo. to about $20/mo. I’m Happy.

    1. Mister G says:

      Thank you for polluting less and making some money. Too bad most Americans will not follow in your footsteps.

  11. tosho says:

    The hurt for the shorters is just beginning.

  12. John c says:

    I thought article was confusing switching be powerpack 2 and powerwall 2

    80 MWh is way more than 390 power walls. It is about 6000 of them

  13. The34Car says:

    Does anyone know if Powerwall 2 will work with microinverter solar systems?

  14. Neil says:

    Does your home qualify? Email me for details
    Neil.brown@solarcity.com

Leave a Reply