11 comments

  • autoexec 18 minutes ago
    I'd feel better about this if they weren't charging people thousands for the batteries. As it is, this looks like a scam by utility companies to force their costs onto consumers and charge them for it on top of that. People should be being paid by the utility for storing, hosting, and allowing access to the power company's distributed infrastructure.

    It's not as if the batteries people are paying for become their property, or are only for the homeowner's benefit. The utility company has the right to use that power however they want at any time including the "right to use all the energy in the battery". The homeowner also has to allow contractors, subcontractors, or third-parties onto their property at any time. Physical access aside, they also have to allow the utility free access to their network and free use of their internet connection/bandwidth. The utility will not compensate homeowners for any of that.

    Home owners must also agree to install the utility company's cell phone apps/software. I'd bet those apps are collecting data and probably pushing ads too. They have to agree to the “Customer Privacy” terms, which will only be shown to them "upon installation of the Equipment".

    The utility company advertises this as a means to prevent power outages (which if they were doing their job in the first place should be extremely rare occurrences), but the fine print makes it clear that home owners should not expect that they will have any access to the power that battery provides in the event of a power outage or at any other time.

    The utility also requires homeowners to agree to terms that state the utility will not be liable for any damage to persons or property caused by use of/replacement of/repair of/or failure to repair the utility's equipment and software. the homeowner "bears the entire risk of loss, theft or damage" to the utility's equipment.

  • lizknope 4 minutes ago
    What is average length of outage? If it is a few hours then the battery seems like a good idea. If it is days then the battery will probably run out.

    > around 50% of the houses in its programme with home batteries also have solar panels

    I'm assuming most of these outages are from snow storms. Do these people have to go up on the roof and clear the solar panels?

  • whartung 1 hour ago
    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.

    • andsoitis 46 minutes ago
      California Virtual Power Plant, Tesla view: https://www.tesla.com/vpp/california
    • thelastgallon 1 hour ago
      Tesla Electric customers report making as much as $150 a day: https://electrek.co/2023/07/05/tesla-electric-customers-repo...
      • danans 14 minutes ago
        > 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.

      • senectus1 32 minutes ago
        there is something really wrong with the economics of this.

        it shouldnt be celebrated.

        • medler 17 minutes ago
          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.
        • imglorp 13 minutes ago
          Makes sense to me. Peaker plants are typically expensive (even at idle) and polluting.

          During peak need, renting some capacity from subscribers already on your grid means you don't need to build another peaker plant.

        • beering 19 minutes ago
          What is wrong with this?
          • senectus1 2 minutes ago
            holy shit, yeah. you dont see a problem with earning "over $5 per kWh" ?!?!
          • senectus1 10 minutes ago
            for single individuals to earn as much as (i assume US$) 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.

        • ihsw 13 minutes ago
          [dead]
  • roughly 2 hours ago
    I love this. It’s basically an edge cache for power, with an enormous amount of side benefits - smooths out solar power, smooths out the duck curve, and allows the grid to size closer to the average load and absorb the spikes at the edge, instead of cascading into the core.

    There was an article earlier about the distribution challenges that come from large workload fluxes, too - tl;dr is the transmission lines get less efficient under higher load, so smoothing out the demand curve to the end user also raises the efficiency of the entire grid.

    And as someone points out below - the proliferation of EVs also helps this, because they can act as a “deep” reservoir so the local residential batteries can be much smaller - more buffers than something expected to run the house for more than a couple hours, so that makes the whole setup even cheaper, depending on when and where the EVs are getting charged.

    • patmorgan23 1 hour ago
      Yep, flatten the peak means you can spread the cost of the transmission grid over more electrons, lower the cost per unit of energy.
  • bentt 6 hours ago
    I live in Vermont. This is the first I've heard of this. But I like it!
    • raddan 1 hour ago
      I live just over the border in Massachusetts and we have something similar, called ConnectedSolutions. It is essentially the same kind of program except that the benefit is a 0% loan on the battery purchase. I have a 15kW battery that allows me to power the entire house overnight without drawing from the grid. When the power company wants to draw from my battery, they send me a notification through my battery’s app. I can opt out some fixed number of times, too. And, just as when my solar runs net negative, the power company pays me (in bill credits) whenever the virtual power plant draws power.
    • sowbug 4 hours ago
      It would be nice to change the headline to "Vermont is replacing power plants with home batteries." Shorter and potentially saves a click.
  • jmyeet 25 minutes ago
    This is something I've been thinking about a lot.

    The way an electricity utility works, you need power plants (or to buy power from someone with power plants), transmission lines and some form of last mile delivery. You have substations and other infrastructure too. That infrastructure has ongoing maintenance costs but also capex to build it in the first place.

    So your per kWh price is the sum of the electricity cost, the maintenance cost and the amortized capex plus some profit.

    Utilities are heavy regulated but only the electricity cost tends to be highly regulated. Any maintenance or capex costs can be passed on directly to the consumer. Private equity has realized this. Data centers have realized this where they can negotiate a lower electricity rate and the build out for multi-gigawatt transmission and power generation can be passed on to consumers. This has gotten creative enough that people in unrelated states end up paying more because of upgrades required for shared infrastructure for interstate utility compacts.

    The obvious endpoint for all this is for users to eventually opt out. Disconnect from the grid and use totally renewable energy plus batteries. Generally in any urban environment you can't avoid the monthly connection cost even if you use no power. The city will declare your house unlivable. I can see this changing in the coming years with soaring prices that basically go to share buybacks and bonuses for private utilities.

    But what if the connection to the grid drops significantly shifting maintenance costs to the rest?

    I think the future is going to move away from large connected grids towards self-sufficiency and smaller localized grids, ideally municipally owned. But you can't gradually move from a large grid to smaller grids like this because of the problems of who pays for the grid in between.

  • AndrewKemendo 1 hour ago
    Vermont continues to be a leader in anarchism and distribution of power (pun intended).

    Distributed power storage/generation has been a thing for a century and it’s finally economical enough to be mainstream.

    This was the whole pitch of the solarcity/tesla solar tiles + power wall a decade or more ago.

  • thelastgallon 6 hours ago
    Or they could use EVs. Require cars to have V2X (Vehicle to Grid, Vehicle to Load) feature. EV batteries are humongous.
    • jethronethro 5 hours ago
      Do any of the EVs sold in the US support Vehicle to Grid?
      • happyopossum 59 minutes ago
        Many do - teslas, ford lightnings, Kia ev9, all the GM Ultium stuff (Silverado etc, hummer ev, Cadillacs), and a bunch of others.
      • danans 11 minutes ago
        Yes, but last I checked the bidi chargers were proprietary - tied to vehicle manufacturer - which is a huge disincentive. I don't want my home's battery connector locked into a vehicle brand/manufacturer.
      • oori 39 minutes ago
        Many do (assuming bidirectional charger), but it’s only 3.6kW max, in most cases
      • WarmWash 1 hour ago
        Lightnings do (well before they were discontinued)

        But given they are NMC chemistry, you probably wouldn't want to cycle them a lot for the grid (or just your home).

        • everybodyknows 15 minutes ago
          You wouldn't have to, to nevertheless provide great benefit to the grid. Look up "TOU billing".
    • bethekidyouwant 1 hour ago
      The down votes are because you use the word require. They’re never going to require it it would be opt in.
      • medler 14 minutes ago
        I think they mean to use EV batteries would require the EV to be designed for V2G capability, which is currently rare
    • 0cf8612b2e1e 4 hours ago
      As a consumer, would you want the extra usage on your battery? Those extra cycles have to cause some additional degradation to the system, but I do not know how much.
      • nicoburns 1 hour ago
        > As a consumer, would you want the extra usage on your battery?

        I feel like this is likely going to be a non-issue in practice. Because these batteries are rated to last at least 10 years either way. And by that time, the cost of replacement will be dramatically cheaper.

      • _aavaa_ 3 hours ago
        How much would I get paid?
        • 0cf8612b2e1e 2 hours ago
          Net metering rates are pretty poor, so I would guess not much outside of extreme grid instability. Although, you then might want to selfishly hoard the juice for yourself.
          • eunoia 1 hour ago
            It would not be selfish to run your home off the car battery during peak rates and therefore cutting peak demand on the grid. Everyone wins.
  • alexnewman 1 hour ago
    Note I have a Tesla powerwall at home. They installed it inside before I bought the house. I always wonder what happens when these things catch fire
    • medler 2 minutes ago
      Which version do you have? I believe they switched to LFP for V3, which should pose significantly less fire risk than the NMC chemistry they were using for V2 and before
    • margalabargala 1 hour ago
      > I always wonder what happens when these things catch fire

      If you're hoping someone will chime in to tell you they have magic firefighting foam inside them or something, I regret to inform you that what happens if it catches fire is exactly what one might naively expect from large lithium batteries.

      • SoftTalker 53 minutes ago
        Yep. I'd never have a large battery like that in my house. Outside, a safe distance away, maybe.
        • fhdkweig 11 minutes ago
          Newer LiFePo4 (Lithium Iron Phosphate) batteries don't have the fire issues that the previous Lithium Ion generation did. They are a bit more expensive and heavier, but they are superior in every other way (safety, lifespan, max charge cycles).
        • bradfa 50 minutes ago
          Unless you plan to physically assault it with weapons, it’s extremely unlikely to catch fire.
  • UltraSane 1 hour ago
    I've seen a program funded by a utility that integrated batteries with air conditioners.
  • sippingabonedry 1 hour ago
    Britain learns about new product called Tesla Powerwall

    also

    Titanic Sinks Four Hours After Hitting Iceberg