Panasonic moves closer to home energy self-sufficiency with fuel cells

I'm guessing it won't work as well all around.
When PV panels get hot, their efficiency drops. The water is taking the unwanted heat away.
Like electrolysis, photolysis efficiency may go up with increased water temperatures. Boiling may be bad, but so is freezing. There may also be an effect from the water flow rate in the cell upon the reaction rate.
In short, with PV the cooling is taking away as much heat as possible, which means more heat to use elsewhere. The photolysis may require some heat, so less heat that can be moved to elsewhere.

Utilities have options beyond batteries that simply don't scale down to residential level. They can pump water to the top of a hill, or pressurize massive air tanks, to later drive turbines. Flywheels are already used for energy storage, and their use expanded. Onsite electrolysis and fuel cells may be a more affordable option. Or they simply replace fossil fuel with nuclear.

The Tesla packs lose energy keeping subsystems running, and the 12 volt 'starter' battery in good health. A Leaf pack won't lose as much as the Tesla while unplugged, but the 12-volt will die, and the car won't start, if done so for too long(also a possibility with SKS equipped gen2 Prius). A Model S will just have lost some range over the same time period, but will get you home, or at least to a charger, instead of stranding you.

If self discharge is a concern, then don't use NiMH. They do so at a faster rate than Li-ion.

 

I don't think that is obviously true.

Stationary utility batteries installed to improve reliability and provide some storage may lower some costs by reducing the need to overbuild capacity beyond the actual required generation level. Also, at least during the transitional phase while there is still a lot of fossil generation, batteries may allow fossil plants to generate more frequently at higher efficiency rather than running at partial output at lower efficiency. A Texas distribution utility proposal for large grid batteries that Zi have previously posted here asserts that batteries will be cost effective.

Battery utility storage will be much more efficient than creating H2 and using fuel cells to regenerate electricity as a way of storing grid energy.

The energy loss is presumably mostly from electronics running in the car in order to provide fast startup, automatic door unlocking, and remote internet control. Lithium Ion cells have very low self-discharge rates (much lower than the NiMH batteries used in many hybrid cars).
merged

I have the impression that with dropping prices, Lithium batteries are now going to be typically more effective and preferred for future installations than alternative flywheel, pumped storage designs, and other designs. It will be really interesting to see how the grid architecture evolves over the next few decades.

 

Battery costs are lowering not climbing, and with the advent of the first gigafactory around the corner, that will lower economies of scale such that utilities will take notice. I don't agree batteries aren't well suited for grid offset. You are also again ignoring the costs associated with building out an H2 infrastructure.

 

Better? if we can ever build out the 100's of billions taxpayers will have to cough up for nationwide infrastructure .... AND .... fracked natural gas remains dirt cheep. $100k EV? Must be the new 90kWh Model S? It's EPA is supposed to be ~ 300 miles. Or ... if you ARE talking a 275 mile EV ... heck, I've seen used Model S cars as low as $46k ;
http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=92630&endYear=2013&modelCode1=TESMODS&showcaseOwnerId=0&startYear=2013&makeCode1=TESLA&listingTypes=all&searchRadius=0&showcaseListingId=0&mmt=%5BTESLA%5BTESMODS%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&listingId=406448404&Log=0
It'll be interesting to see what kind of used price tags come with Toyota's hydrogen car ... especially as the stacks, plumbing, & tanks' safety ratings start to expire. That's a lot scarier proposition than an expensive traction pack that now "only" gets 150-200 miles.

.

 

Disingenuous at best, misleading is more accurate.
If your position is strong, I see no need to mislead.
The costs you compare are not accurate. First, the 270 mile BEV is $85k, not $100k.
Next, you are quoting the price to the customer, not the cost of the vehicle. If you are comparing technology, you should compare cost to build. Tesla is making about 23% profit margins on the Model S, so the cost to build is closer to $65k. I'm not sure what the Mirai costs, but I'm guessing it is more.

 

These aren't cars. A large traction battery might be a negative because of weight. Weight, bulk, and energy density don't have the same priority for grid use as they do in cars.
The cost per kWh for batteries doesn't increase with the more you buy. In fact, the increased demand for traction batteries has decreased the cost of LI-ion packs since the tax credits were available.

Tesla is a publicly traded company. Their open reports some how much net profit they make per car, with or without the selling of ZEV credits. How much profit will each Mirai make Toyota?

Time will tell which one is the more economical choice for storing excess renewable power, and it may come down to local factors for each install. Right now, batteries are being used, and the only stationary fuel cells on the market use natural gas.

 

Model S Design Studio | Tesla Motors
Just to make sure, you can get the high performance one to cost over $100K with things like air suspension, 7 seats, etc, but before tax credits Model S 90D costs $90500 including autopilot. Official EPA is not out yet but it is expected to be 285 miles. The least expensive tesla S now is the rwd 70, nicely equipped is $70,000 before incentives. In california the only state the mirai is sold these receive $10,000 in tax credits and hov stickers.

The mirai is slower and not as luxurious and misses several features like fill at home, free around the country super charger network. It is $57,500 before credits, and in california 8 dealerships recieves $12,500 worth of credits and an HOV sticker, along with a toyota $15,000 credit card that I belive can only be used on hydrogen fuel and must be used in the first 3 years. CARB is spending $220M on hydrogen fueling infrastructure, and expects to cover part of the state with 86 stations by the end of 2021. Toyota says there should be 20 stations by the end of the year.

Which one do you think more Americans will buy? Tesla's profit margin slid to 23% on the model S last quarter. It is investing all the profits in R&D. Toyota expects to lose money on every mirai sold, I believe that was the case even without the new hydrogen credit card included with purchase. Toyota is investing some of its cash on future fuel cells and can afford lots of red ink. This is not anything about future fuel cells but initial adopters in all 50 states consider plug-ins a better value in this generation.

 

I hadn't realize that a big battery has been in use on the Texas grid for over 5 years now. It's serving a desolate area of west Texas as a huge backup supply.

Texas Pioneers Energy Storage in Giant Battery

This link mentions it being used to power the entire town while work is done on the lone transmission line serving the area.

Power outages set for Monday, Tuesday in Presidio, Shafter, and south of Marfa cancelled « Big Bend Now

 

^Impressive, and that is the here and now; heck, that is 5-year-old tech at this juncture. Energy density has only improved since.

 

In which case their misleading implication appeared to work in your case.

 

From the link, "The Silicon Valley automaker is losing more than $4,000 on every Model S electric sedan it sells, using its reckoning of operating losses,"
How much of its operating losses include the launch of the Model X, building the Gigafactory, and development of the Model 3? Tesla is just spending more than it's profit to expand in the last year or so.

 

GAAP expenses R&D as they occur. Tesla last quarter margin dropped to 23%. All the losses have to do with R&D on the gigafactory, model X, and model 3. These are not treated as losses in financial accounting but cash burn. If your cash burn is too high you need to raise more capital, and tesla has done this numerous times. The model X being late added to the cash burn. The model 3 and gigafactory spending could be slowed down if there was a problem, but there isn't.

 

Did you notice the huge disconnect between what the article claims and what the title claims? It may not jump out right away, but the article basically takes a revenue guess and subtracts a cost guess. It then takes the difference and divides it by some number of cars. Then finally it pulls off the big lie of claiming this number is a "loss on every car sold"....or to restate, if Tesla sells an additional car it loses $4000 more. Usually when car makers sell a car for more than it cost make it, they make money on the sale. But NOOO, Tesla loses money on every car sold. Fortunately, Tesla does not use this accounting technique.

 

Or anybody else. It is the same misleading accounting that said GM was losing $80k on each Volt sold, by putting all the Voltec R&D on the backs of the few cars sold up to the point when the analysis was made..

 

Ah-Ha. Now we know why GM crushed the EV1s. They must have made $100,000 for each one they crushed.