Tesla To Power Escondido Schools

AUG 8 2015 BY MARK KANE 18

Tesla's stationary energy storage

Tesla’s stationary energy storage

Utilities are doing a big favor for energy storage systems by increasing peak power rates.

For example, in San Diego County, three Escondido high schools (Escondido High School, Orange Glen High School and San Pasqual High School) will avoid higher peak rates by installing Tesla ESS (400 to 600 kW depending on needs).

According to the article, 42 local public school districts in San Diego County noted this past year a combined $30 million rise in electricity costs. There are more applications from utilities for future raises in rates in the California PUC.

The Escondido Union High School District expects up to $300,000 annually in electricity costs savings by installing the Tesla ESS.

“In Escondido, Tesla has proposed charging several large lithium ion batteries at night — when power costs fall to roughly 12 cents per kilowatt hour — and using the stored energy during the day, when rates can rise to 42 cents, according to Simonson.

Plans approved by the state’s Division of State Architect recently gave the school district the green light to begin building storage facilities for the batteries in the next few weeks. The concrete-block buildings will be the size of an average office with locked, double-wide steel doors.”

Installations are supported by the Self-Generation Incentive Program.

Source: sandiegouniontribune.com

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

18 Comments on "Tesla To Power Escondido Schools"

newest oldest most voted

Next through up some solar panels on those flat school roofs and save even more.

throw not through, doh!

Next time, check more throughly.

California has the cleanest grid.

They are down to around 600 while the average for the US is around twice that.

And yet they strive more more.

Meanwhile coal states get super lax targets like 1200 or so. Don’t forget the EPA is telling you deltas based on 2005 or something.

So the bottom line on the EPA’s new rules is that they will be easy targets to make.

If you study CAFE you find the same thing.
the 50 MPG target is Bogus. The EPA sticker will only have to be around 40 or so.

At $.42/kwhr solar panels have a payback in just 18 months or a ROI of 75%/yr for 25 yrs.
And shows solar powers true worth. Though in 15 yrs or so with so much solar installed because of it costs, is already keeping power rates down

I know man.
That rate of return is BETTER then the Stock Market, with No volatility risk. So too, the payback for Hybrids and EV’s.

The 1% in finance are truly clueless.
I guess it’s economic darwinism.
You save money getting ahead of the people who won’t do the math, you pull ahead every year and they fall behind.

The CA installations have a big advantage. These schools and so on can get a huge check from the California S.G.I.P. program for the batteries – much bigger than the credits from installing solar. Yes, Solar utilizing Net-Metering is good but the battery market is more lucrative due to the large subsidy involved.

I’d love to see what the actual cost of the system ends up being. The article says the project will cost $2-8M. Let’s say that it will cost $2M and that will buy 3 400 kWh Tesla Power Packs, one for each school, or 1200 kWh.

Now we already know that the home Power Wall costs $3500 for 10 kWh (excluding installation and inverter) or $350 / kWh. Just to get some back of the envelope figures, assume that the commercial Power Pack will cost the same, or $420,000 for 1200 kWh.

Where is the other $1.6M in costs coming from?

The powerpack will cost 2500 for 100 kW but that is the price to the company that install it. When they will probebly want there share.

Dave R asked:

“Where is the other $1.6M in costs coming from?”

Installation, including the cost of (quoting the article) “The concrete-block buildings will be the size of an average office with locked, double-wide steel doors.”

$1.6m is a crazy amount to speed on the building and install. The “building” really should just amount to cinder block walls and locking doors.

Tesla does this at nearly every supercharger location. $500k+ ea to build three of these is extremely expensive.

Let’s out it this way – if a 400kWh Power Wall costs $700k and the bulk of the cost is installation, there is absolutely no way Tesla’s Power Wall will become cost-effective.

It is called “juiced project costs” due to the amount of money coming in from the CA S.G.I.P. program. Because they are using a California supplier – this is $1.75/Watt installation. A 400 KW system uses about 900-1000 kWh of batteries (2 hours or more of runtime at the KW rating). So, that is 400,000 times $1.75 or $700,000 in CA money alone to pay for the project. If 1000 kWh of batteries are used, that is supposedly $250,000 for batteries. CA paying $700,000 for the project. Contractors and installers will surely use that to their advantage.

Sorry, $25000 for 100 kW

This is actually a benefit to the school AND a benefit to the Utility. The utility has less “risk” of needing greater investment in energy production. They flatten their demand curve, their energy production facilities run at a greater efficiency.

The real win here is not having to run hydrocarbon fueled plants during peaks.

I get the ‘bird in hand’ reply RE the SGIP, but c’mon, a school building is nearly the perfect place for solar, sell production to offset costs, presuming that the electric company is on board, each school building becomes a widespread producer. oh well.
I don’t Know the utility/heating costs for That Many buildings that size, but will guess that they are quite high – a marriage-of-convenience with the power utility could be quite synergistic.
Where is Peder, I’d like to hear his thoughts

If it really is so good for the school and for the power company, then the power company can install a co-located battery system which they can own and maintain and then let the school get in on a discounted power rate because they offer the location for the storage itself. Apparently, the power companies don’t benefit enough to do something like that – but schools can reap big checks from the SGIP program to do a small project. New projects now are getting waitlisted – because the monies are currently all booked up on project reservations. Those lucky enough to have gotten into the program already have a check coming that could just about pay for the entire system. Those making the news are those projects already on the SGIP reserved funds list. But those not on the list will need to pay a much higher cost for the install.

understood, but wondered if the idea had already been examined/discarded, as my limited logic tells me that with the utility having some control of the system (via grants and/or attractive loans), locality/substation-level producing peak power -could- be attractive to them, and be Very beneficial to the strapped schools. Add a few labor-volunteers..