Tesla Powerwall 2 Is The Best Of The Best: 30% Cheaper Than The Competition

DEC 1 2016 BY MARK KANE 28

Tesla Powerwall 2.0

Tesla Powerwall 2.0

Australian RenewEconomy evaluated 30 different home energy storage systems and found out that Tesla’s offer on its latest energy storage system is the best of the best.

The new Tesla Powerwall 2.0 not only beats competitors, but second best model is 30% behind Tesla on price per warranted kWh under 1 cycle per day utilization.

Tesla Powerwall 2.0 (unveiling story) is 14 kWh ESS (13.5 kWh usable) with 10 years warranty, with built-in inverter (AC version) or DC converter (DC version). Up to 9 units can be installed in one system.

Tesla Powerwall 2.0 Specs (updated)

Tesla Powerwall 2.0 Specs (updated)

Having built-in inverter makes Powerwall 2.0 even more attractive compared to other ESS.

“The SolarQuotes Battery Comparison table gives the cost per warrantied kilowatt-hour for over 30 battery systems when fully cycled once per day.  The results are shown in the graph below, and as you can see, both versions of the Powerwall 2 are well ahead of the closest competition.

The Powerwall 2 is almost 30% cheaper than its next closest competitor, but the comparison is actually better than the graph makes it appear because the AC version of the Powerwall 2 includes a built in battery-inverter and the DC version includes a built in DC converter while its closest competitors on cost per stored kilowatt-hour do not.

This means the AC Powerwall 2 could installed without any additional hardware while the next 4 battery systems on the graph would require a separate battery-inverter to be installed the same way.”

source: RenewEconomy via Teslarati

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

28 Comments on "Tesla Powerwall 2 Is The Best Of The Best: 30% Cheaper Than The Competition"

newest oldest most voted

GO TESLA GO…keep on kickin ARSE

According to the following website, a kWh from the australian grid is 29 Cent on average – so the Tesla Powerwall kWh is actually the only system which can beat gridpower prices!


You ignore power cost…

Battery is by itself piece of junk, that only attain value when tied into power source.

So it’s:

x + 0,23$ for Powerwall backed solution where x is cost of electricity
0,29$ for grid

So x – cost of electricity itself would have to be less then 0,03$ to make Powerwall cheaper then grid.

If Tesla could go to 0,17$ then they are golden.

For now in Australia Powerwall should be bought for other benefits of it rather then non existing $$$

I’m speaking about homes which already have (or want to go to) solar power of course.

Unless you get the solar panels and installation for free, you solar system will have a cost per kWh for the electricity that it generates.

Like I said – if the solar is already there and you now can store some of it, use it at night and still save money, thats a no brainer.

Your point seems to be: but what if you don’t save anything?
Examples for that would be: When your solar costs is more than 6ct/kWh, or when you have cheap night prices or if you get some money back for feeding power to the grid in the day.

Well, you could argue that the backup-option in the case of power outages has a value. Using your own, green power and maybe go offgrid and save some connection fees may have too. Right?

Now that’s an idea. Some people get $0.60 rebate for their solar export, so if you purchase off peak power for $0.15 at night and then feed back and get $0.60, that would be a bit of a profit $0.45, which is well and truly better than average $0.29.

And you can feed back average 5kwh so even when solar is low, you still get an advantage.

Dishonest? Or just playing the system?

That would be illegal, the system probably won’t allow you to do that.

The equation is more complex than that and come January it will get more so. There are a wide range of power prices and pricing tariff structures 2 examples of where things might get a little complex: In some states when you go solar, if you want to export your power, you have to go onto a solar tariff that will increase your daily charge by about $0.3 per day. The power you buy from the grid is often also a bit more expensive. So if you go to a zero export system by purchasing a battery you can save quite a bit without even factoring in the difference between solar and grid power. The feed in tariff is now less than 0.06 per kWh for exported power so you earn very little selling power back into the grid. In January the $0.6 feed in tariff will expire for around 180,000 Australians who will switch to $0.055 per kWh. In some cases people will go from a negative bill to an expensive bill. In other parts of the country the panels were (are?) subsided but the size of the inverter restricted. This has lead to oversized pv panels on small… Read more »

This should be telling about the price of batteries from all the manufacturers. LG Chem doesn’t have cheaper at-home batteries than Tesla, by a fair margin, which suggests something about the cost of their battery packs to GM. Given that these products are maximally simpler than cars, and they are mostly batteries and support electronics for the batteries, this one chart has a lot to say about the price per kWh.
Panasonic is also listed as making a product here, so considering Panasonic is partnered with Tesla, my conclusion is somewhat incomplete. Maybe, on the inside, the batteries are much different. I mean, different teams within Panasonic makes sense. They may be using more expensive, lower-volume formats for these at-home batteries. Looking forward to everyone else’s thoughts in the comments field!

This chart uses the warranty period as part of the equation. Hardly ever see that. Now, will Tesla start offering charts of the “cost per warrantied mile of the car versus other cars”? Show me a BOS entire installed price, the most probable kWh that can be stored/retrieved over time and do it in different scenarios – outside in the weather, inside in 70*F zones, etc. or, are we wanting to install outside always due to the volatile nature of the cells? Some of these systems offer LiFEPO4 batteries which you can drill into and not burn your house down. They should separate the systems based on battery types. Many would use the higher-volatility batteries if they felt they were safe enough. Price is one thing, but peace of mind is another. And gasoline in a container in the garage is not safe for a generator, so it’s not about that either. If these PowerWall 2.0 solutions do not do at least 2900-3300 Full 1C cycles per day, then I find that there is still an issue to be worked out in terms of viable chemistry. More than likely, the charge and draw will be set at sub 1C to… Read more »

The other systems have real existing installations. Tesla Powerwall 2 has ZERO, it’s vaporware.

Well, that’s gonna suck if I get enough Tesla referrals this quarter. What will Elon Musk sign and ship to me? And what did they have shown during the reveal of the solar roof about a month ago?

Serial anti-Tesla troll and probable Nissan employee CSC is wrong again!

Unlike the unicorn Leaf 2, Powerwall 2 has been shown, is starting production and can be ordered NOW for delivery in less then 2 months:



Coming soon doesn’t mean here today.

And your second link lists 7 months, not 2.

Installations begin January 2017 in the USA

Serial Tesla FUDster Counter-Strike Cat returns to InsideEVs.

Hey, CSC, what brings you here today? Is your short-selling investment in Telsa getting close to a short squeeze? I hope so!

these figures suggest that the tesla powerwall has a 1,000 to 1,500 cycle lifetime. that means that if you discharged the battery daily, the battery would last 3 or 4 years.

i wonder why tesla gives the powerwall a 10 year warranty?

It is a weird, tiered warranty. They are only comparing systems’ warrantied kWh and not the “end-game” total kWh that they can store and release over the lifetime (down to say 70% capacity). Lifetime really should be down to maybe 40% capacity. Why stop at 80% or 70%.

you’ll buy a battery with a particular designed-in specification. by the time the battery capacity is down to 80% it’s pretty much getting out of specification. by the time it is down to 40% it is falling far short of it’s intended purpose.

This is confusing EV battery packs with stationary storage. The rule of thumb for EV packs is they should be replaced when they drop below 80% of original capacity. But for stationary storage, the rule of thumb is to keep using batteries until they drop below 50% of original capacity.

Unless there literally isn’t enough space for another PowerWall, there’s no good reason to discard (or trade in) a stationary battery pack that still has 80% of its original capacity. There is still a lot of life left in such a unit.

you can, of course, keep a battery until it can’t hold a charge at all. but that is a different matter from what a manufacturer is going to want to advertise.

it’s the same with LED lighting; the lifetime of the bulb is spec’ed to L70, or when the light output is 70% of the original value. the reason being that most people can’t detect illumination variations of less than 30%. the L70 lifetime doesn’t mean that the bulb goes dark, and you can continue to use it. but when the bulb arrives at the L70 lifetime, you are presumably able to detect that the bulb is not as bright. light designers care about that kind of thing so that’s why manufacturers spec bulbs accordingly.

Cost per warranted kWh? Seriously?

How about Cost per prospective delivered kWh. We buy Solar in the same way – cost per Watt nameplate with expectation of some sub 1% decline in annual production. Not by the warranted Watt/Years.

It doesn’t exist yet.

It’s really fruitless to compare products that actually exist to ones that are coming soon. You have to compare something to its peers to get an idea of how good it is.

When this thing comes out, compare it to what else is out.

That’s right and in 2013, Tesla was working on the $30,000 Model 3.

Does it included the installed cost? Let us assume it is overall cost. (If not, then the calculation gets messy). So, at $0.23/kWh, it would have to save me that much per day to be worth the price, right? 13kWh x $0.23 is $3 per day or $90/month. 13kWh x 30 (or 31) is ~400kWh per month. This ONLY makes sense if I am a high power user and I use 400kWh per month more than baseline that charge me $0.23/kWh less than the top tier. Base rate of CA is $0.17/kWh in PG&E E-1 rate. $0.40/kWh is about tier 4 rate which means that I would have to use 1,400 or more kWh per month on E1 to break even. For EV rate, the lowest rate is $0.11/kWh and top rate is $0.44/kWh. That is a difference of $0.33/kWh. Now, it starts to make some sense. If I can avoid the $0.44/kWh peak rate with the battery, then it will pay for itself (assume I use at least 13kWh of it during 2pm-9pm period every day). If not, I can at least pump it back on peak (2-9pm) and “refill” it during off peak hours to pay for the… Read more »

I guess I forgot about the 10% loss.

Okay, so the difference shrinks by 10%. The difference is about $0.30/kWh now. Still better than $0.23/kWh in cost.

This is assuming that $0.07/kWh difference cover the cost of installation.

$0.07 x 12.15 x 365 x 10 = ~$3105

Of course, using EVA assumes one can avoid to use most of the power between 7am to 11pm.. (7am to 2pm is partial peak, 2pm to 9pm is peak, 9pm to 11pm is partial peak).

Partial peak cost $0.24/kwh which offers no gain for power wall.

Good point. Without solar input, of you purchase at $0.15 and prevent the purchase at $0.35, then that $0.20 saving could make sense. As energy prices will continue to increase, over the 5-10 year life, it would probably work out in the long run.