Australians set to waste money on batteries

formatting link

At $5500 (is that including GST?) for a 7kWh model, with a ten year life, and allowing for interest, that comes in at about 28 cents per kWh, and that's before the cost of the solar panels and the inverter (not included with the battery), and installation, is included. It's also based on the questionable (i.e. certainly false) assumption that they can be recharged from solar everyday. The reality is that they won't be, and the cost per kWh will be accordingly higher.

The limit of 2kW continuous and 3.3kW peak should also be noted. It isn't clear how long one can draw 3.3kW for, but 2kW is less than is required to run an ordinary domestic kettle. A typical household might have trouble using the entire capacity, pushing up the effective cost per kWh.

The good thing about these is that they may finally force a change to the way electricity is charged for, with much greater emphasis placed on the cost of making it available versus the cost of supplying it when it's required. People who treat the grid as a backup will then pay something closer to the true cost of using it that way.

Either way, I'll have to look at that the economics of charging these on overnight off-peak power (generated by coal fired power stations) for use during the evening peak when the much more expensive power would otherwise be generated using less polluting natural gas, or even hydro.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else
Loading thread data ...

Maybe in ten years time they might be economical. Lead acid still has the rest beaten. The problem really is the cost to you of building suck a system.

Thew other issue is whether your mains supplier will let you do it.

Reply to
news13

Though I don't know of a lead-acid battery that will survive a daily deep cycle for ten years.

I don't know that they have a legal basis for objecting.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Err, never heard of "Deep cycle lead acid battery"? Twenty years is viable and often achieved.

Like all batteries, each type has % depth, rates and cycle trade offs, not to mention relative cost.

ABC Science show?, I think, was discussing this "wall" and the guys in the field just said NOPE, it is just a step on the road to the one we need. Caveat electric cars.

H

as an electrician said "I can't do it legally, but there is nothing to Atop you doing it". I wanted a circuit running off the OP to keep a few emergency batteries topped up.

I suspect they have some legal say on what is connected to their network.

Reply to
news13

The rule of thumb seems to be 50% discharge gives the best economics.

Are you aware of a lead acid deep cycle battery whose manufacturer states that it will last in excess of 3600 cycles at 50% discharge?

It's just a battery that gets charged. People do it all the time. OK, this one's a big battery, but where's the regulation that puts a limit on the size of batteries being recharged?

We don't know that the electrician actually knew of a regulation. Perhaps he heard it in the pub, or just didn't want to carry the commercial risk of such an installation.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

What thumbless idiot came up with that? Let me guess, it is from wikipedia? That statement only makes sense in a specific context; perhaps motorised wheel chairs?

I've never heard it anywhere before.

If I wanted long -life, I'd be planning on 10-20% discharge per day for a DCLA. Only 3600 cycles should be easily achieved for wet under those conditions.

Nope, not the battery, but the source. If you are old plan; aka direct circuits, then it is apparently a problem. If you're on time of day, just plug here in and go.

Caveat, they do what bills for sudden consumption changes.

I supposed the real test will be the take up by the whacky bacca brigade to try and hide the huge electricity bill.

All he had to do was check socket in garage and wire it in at meter box.

Reply to
news13

But now you need more batteries, which pushes the price up.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Hopefully, we are all set to "waste money" on minimising Anthropogenic Global Warming! Households that are installing battery backed solar or wind are doing their best to lower their own carbon footprint.

If you doubt that AGW is a problem then any waste of money on batteries is insignificant compared to the government's "waste of money" Direct Action Plan and Renewable Energy Targets.

Once again, you assume that the "true cost" does not include the cost of AGW. If the aim is to minimise carbon emissions then it is inevitable that we will pay more for electricity. The aim should be to regard carbon emissions as a major cost and to tailor the supply to maximise the use of renewables.

That must change. Base _load_ is often confused with the cheapest _supply_. Coal and gas should only be used if renewables cannot meet the current load.

Reply to
Gordon Levi

That depends on how much pollution, waste and resources are used/made to make the batteries.

People often leave that out of the equation when they start talking about lowering their carbon footprint.

Like buying new cars for instance. You would do more for the environment by driving a and old plumer for 20 years instead of buying a new car every couple of years when you consider the amount of energy and waste produced that went into building that new car.

Reply to
Clocky

Rule one, if you see price as the limitation, then you'd better study study investments 101 again and redo your figures.

Reply to
news13

You do that with the old deep cycle lead acid battery that is highly recoverable. Not new yet to be proven, high tech devices.

>
Reply to
news13

That sounds like "capital cost isn't important, because it's incurred only once."

Any money spent on batteries is money that cannot be placed on deposit to earn interest, so the price does matter.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

This is a thread about economics, not the environment, but if you want people to adjust their behaviour so as to reduce their impact on the environment, then you will have to get an adjustment to the pricing signals. Most people cannot afford to put their environmental concerns ahead of their bank balance.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Oooh, side step. Discharge to 50% and have to replace 6x over the life of double cost & discharge to 20%.

Reply to
news13

IME, they can not put anything ahead of immediate gratification, aka consumer spending, which is why they are whining instead of buying houses.

Reply to
news13

You started a thread on the topic of wasting money on batteries. Most people cannot afford to buy the batteries. For those that can, the target market is those that will buy them in the hope of lowering their carbon footprint. I am reasonable confident that the number of geeks willing to buy them based on saving money by time shifting their electricity consumption is very close to one.

Reply to
Gordon Levi

I don't think that's the target market at all. The target market is anyone who can be persuaded to buy one, and that includes those people who can be wrongly convinced that by this approach they can reduce their overall power cost. I rather suspect that the latter will constitute the lion's share of the market.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

That is because you are the one! I don't believe that anybody else would contemplate spending $5500 to store some off peak electricity from the grid for use in peak periods.

Reply to
Gordon Levi

It it saved money, why not?

However, I haven't done the sums, so I don't know whether it would.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

No reason at all. I was commenting on the fact that although such extreme geekiness is endearing it is far too rare to make a market for the battery. That is why I'm reasonably confident the target market is those that already have solar and wish to further reduce their carbon footprint with battery backup.

That's another reason why the target market is not those who wish to save money. The sums depend on some estimates of electricity pricing over the life of the battery and that is unpredictable. As you rightly point out, widespread use of the battery would affect electricity prices.

My only point of disagreement is your subject line. If the buyers do lower their carbon footprint it is not a waste of money.

Reply to
Gordon Levi

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.