CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Batteries IHS_-_PV_Storage_Lifetime_Cost_Analysis

Published on April 30th, 2013 | by Zachary Shahan

38

Solar PV Energy Storage Market To Skyrocket

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

April 30th, 2013 by Zachary Shahan 

Energy storage may be the next big thing in cleantech, and in the energy sector as a whole. We have never had much energy storage in place across the world. Instead, we have built a tremendous amount of backup capacity. With the variability of wind and solar, their increasingly low costs, and the desire to have a renewably powered world, the drive for cost-effective storage has picked up in pace. And many new solutions seem to be on the horizon. Furthermore, as the market expands, economies of scale allow the manufacturing costs to drop considerably.

A new report from IMS Research, which is part of IHS Inc, finds that the market will grow from under $200 million in 2012 to $19 billion by 2017. That’s quite explosive growth.

IHS_-_PV_Storage_Revenue_Forecast

The report, “The Role of Energy Storage in the PV Industry,” also finds that Germany will lead that growth. (Who’s surprised?)

“Following the introduction of an energy storage subsidy in Germany, global installations of PV storage systems are forecast to grow by more than 100 percent a year on average over the next five years, to reach almost 7 gigawatts (GW) in 2017 and worth $19 billion,” IMS Research writes. “Germany will account for nearly 70 percent of storage installed in residential PV systems worldwide in 2013.”

Germany’s energy storage subsidy, which is starting on May 1 (tomorrow), may not be ideal, but it is certainly a start. “IHS predicts that the subsidy will promote rapid growth in the German residential sector, and result in almost 2 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of effective storage capacity being installed during the next five years.”

IHS_-_PV_Storage_Lifetime_Cost_Analysis

The reason storage in Germany is looking so promising, beyond the storage incentive, is that the feed-in tariff for solar power has gotten so low that it is lower than residential electricity rates. So, a homeowner saves more money by using solar power on location than selling it. But because the sun doesn’t shine for the full time that we use electricity and many people generate more electricity than they need when it is shining, if energy storage is cheap enough, it becomes more sensible to store what one generates in the daytime for use later in the evening.

Even without the coming subsidy, 8 MW of solar power were installed with storage in 2012.

IMS Research adds: “the proposed subsidy will reduce the average 20-year cost of a PV system with storage to 10 percent less than a system without it.”



IMS Research expects other countries to follow Germany’s lead, as they did with solar power feed-in tariffs. And, of course, with falling battery costs, the incentives won’t even be needed to spur on a great deal of market growth.

“Even without subsidies though, storage can be an attractive proposition in conjunction with residential PV systems in some markets, such as the U.K., where the market is forecast to begin growing quickly in 2014, when the price of batteries is predicted to have fallen sufficiently to make PV storage financially viable,” said Sam Wilkinson, PV analyst at IHS.

As for the non-residential market, by the way, IMS Research sees it growing substantially as well. It projects that utility-scale PV systems with storage will grow by 2 GW annually by 2017.

This article originally appeared on Solar Love.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • fireofenergy

    That graph is a let down. It didn’t say “+ estimated storage costs”. We already have to make solar and wind cheaper, in order to mass produce the required 4x build up (to make up for low CF). Once max grid integration, we will have to also mass produce cheap storage, and LOTS of it (to the tune of 3/4ths RE field required to replace FF’s). So, what is better, 40% efficiency with electrode and molten salt storage (with turbine) and 2x RE field, pumped hydro (at about 70% and 1.5x the RE field) or 95% efficient batteries and only 1x RE field? Obviously, we will want to use less land and spend less money on the RE field, thus, we should focus on the possibility of making a long cycle battery for the cheap with rather abundant materials.
    Otherwise, we will have to employ one or more of the following molten fuels fission reactors… MSR, HGR, IFR, PRISM or, of course, LFTR (or better).

    • Bob_Wallace

      “That graph is a let down. It didn’t say “+ estimated storage costs”.

      My version of the graph clearly says “storage”. The third and fourth bats are ‘with storage’.

      “4x build up (to make up for low CF”

      What does that mean?

      “the tune of 3/4ths RE field required to replace FF’s”

      I think I understand what you are trying to say. How did you develop that number?

      ” what is better, 40% efficiency with electrode and molten salt storage
      (with turbine) and 2x RE field, pumped hydro (at about 70% and 1.5x the
      RE field) or 95% efficient batteries and only 1x RE field?”

      Without cost figures the question is unanswerable. If I understand your question. You comment is hard to read. What’s an “RE field”?”

      • fireofenergy

        Whooa!
        There was a ad covering the bottom of that graph (making me look quite illiterate), therefore, I was thinking that the TOP criteria were being graphed (but didn’t think to realize that would have been way too much). Now, after looking for the “x” on that ad, I clearly see that the top is included in all of the graphed.
        Sorry, but (to webmaster), they shouldn’t but ads right on top of images (perhaps, right below them like I thought was the case already). It’s not the viewer’s responsibility to spend extra time and actually mentally make sure to check for such inconvenience, as most viewers will simply gloss over, as I did!

        A RE field is my shorthand for renewable energy capacity. And the efficiency of storage IS what determines how much capacity will need to be built when the renewables come close to actually replacing FF’s (fossil fuels).
        So if we use very cheap molten salt storage to store electricity already generated elsewhere during excess wind or sunlight, we have to pay a penalty of up to 70% via the steam turbine process. But if we use batteries (assuming 95% efficient, and a further 5% loss for balancing, etc), we will only have to pay a 10% penalty. Therefore, over twice the RE field will have to be built in order to use the much cheaper molten salt. Or… only half the RE capacity will need to be built if we could ever mass produce lifepo4 style batteries for the cheap.

        It will take a certain amount of energy to power the population. Here’s where we don’t need actual figures (to keep the point simple for all of us). All we need to know is the average CF (capacity factor), which, again for sake of simplicity, I say is 25%. Therefore, whatever amount of renewables it takes to power the people while they’re “on” will only be a quarter of the capacity required to do that AND store… Actually, we have to account for higher CF for wind but also, the efficiency loss of whatever storage. We get to account for large transmission distances to lessen the storage demand, but, again the extra costs associated with that. So, to put actual numbers on it will require that we build up about 256 GW of PV (alone) covering close to 1% of the land, to power everything, including (the very inefficient) storage in the steam cycle (and assuming “just” 15% efficient panels.

        So, basically, I’m just saying “I can imagine everyone being able to afford the renewables, but CAN’T imagine everyone being able to afford all the extra renewables AND the storage necessary for 24/7 power dependability unless people make VERY little off of the machines (that must also still be developed) which must make all this stuff for VERY cheap”.

        Again, sorry about the not knowing about the ad in front of the graph… (Now, I get to read it!).

        • Bob_Wallace

          “And the efficiency of storage IS what determines how much capacity will need to be built when the renewables come close to actually replacing FF’s (fossil fuels).”

          No, the cost of storage will determine the ratio of storage to capacity which will be built.

          You need to read Budischak, et al.
          https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit

          And battery technology has passed on by lead-acids. There are multiple battery storage technologies now on line. I’m not aware of anyone using large scale lead-acid.

          • fireofenergy

            Actually, we are both right, as you should have already figured out.

            2x efficient storage = 1/2 the renewable energy capacity for the same amount of power (+ or – small variables and transmission, etc). You must have had an ad infront of my post, as well LOL.

            Considering batteries, I believe the lead acid is about as cheap as any other stationary… But, I would like to see something like the (totally awesome) lifepo4 to be mass produced. Sure, it takes lithium, but as demand goes up, more competition is created which creates much more supply. Contrary to those who would like China to control the market, there is almost no limit to lithium supplies as it is about as “rare” as lead.

          • Bob_Wallace

            The efficiency of any considered storage system is fairly high. Doubling efficiency is not an option.

            Zinc-air batteries are considerably cheaper than lead-acid. As from flow batteries.

            Several company manufacture and market lithium iron phosphate batteries. BYD has been using them in their e6 EV taxis for at least a couple of years.

            You are correct. There is plenty of lithium. The US recently began producing once again.

            The ocean is full of lithium.

          • fireofenergy

            Thank you, keep up the good work! (and apologies for my attitude, earlier). Hopefully, I’ll be able to do something with solar past just making a few bright solar lights…

          • Bob_Wallace

            Make good stuff. The more good stuff we’ve got, the quicker we can put fossil fuels behind us.

  • Robert

    What is a good off grid system set up size that could power a home that used about 25kw-30kw a day? what would you need to do this?

    • Bob_Wallace

      Even before you ask the system size question, best to ask yourself how you could get your daily use down from where it is. It’s a lot cheaper to save energy than to generate it.

      Then, let’s suppose you get it down to 20k per day. And you live somewhere that averages 4.5 solar hours per day over the year. You’d need a 4.5 kilowatt system to generate as much power in a year as you use in a year. 5 kW would be a better estimate just to make up for system losses and inefficiencies.

      That’s assuming you live somewhere with net metering. In other words, the electricity you generate on a sunny day and can’t use at that moment gets fed to the grid and then you can take back a similar amount when the Sun isn’t shining.

      • Robert

        Thank you very much that and for answering some my concerns, however I’m not looking at on grid system but an off grid system. I have tried all energy saving tips and unable to reduce the energy consumption down (see below energy Consultants), following Mark W’s reply I think a good option size is 10 kW or more setup is a good one, for an off grid system.

        I want to be independent of the main grid as the cost is getting out of hand I’ve noticed a number of people pointed out that grid connected systems have added 20% to the total bill cost this year alone. I wanted be fully independent and run my own power system and not be held to these ransom prices in Australia paying for someone else’s renewable rooftop scheme.

        I have a property is capable installing this 10 kW capacity or more, I have to now consider whether I’m going to track the sun, or have it fixed upon the roof, or on the ground. Mark pointed out that I would need to have extra battery capacity, so I would consider installing 90kw of battery capacity, which should give me 2 day supply @ zero amp, probably give me through a week if I conserve energy if there is no sun or little sun light available during the week in bad weather.

        The energy consultants told me I would end up with a round $13,000 a year power bill for 2013-2014 if I don’t take any action, even the energy consultant informed me that there is no way out, but go off the grid, as the cost keeps getting stacked upon household electricity bills, through renewable energy payment schemes. I’m been inform that I’m not allowed to install a grid connected system as there is too many people connected already 80% in the area and only 20% covering revenue coming in to subsidise an on grid system.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Why don’t you start today with a simple recording of whether the day was sunny or not sunny?

          You’re heading into your winter and I assume it’s sort of like winter here in CA – that’s when the Sun doesn’t shine every day.

          If you had a good feel for the number of cloudy days in a row you have to survive then you could make a better decision about battery bank. If, for example, more than three cloudy days in a row is a rare event then it makes little sense to purchase more than three days worth of batteries.

          If you have 4/4+ cloudy days only 2-3 times a year then it would probably make more sense to turn on a generator on day four and charge up. (Adjust the numbers based on what you record.)

          A simple bar graph would let you quickly see what you’re up against.

          And the new Trojan T-105 RE batteries can be taken all the way to zero 1,000 times. Taken to 80% they should be good for 4,000 cycles. If you sized your system so that 80% would carry you most of the time you could afford to give up some cycle life and go low once in a while.

      • Colin

        It’s very difficult to reduce energy consumption and if you achieve any consumption reduction you still paying more than before as they increased the price it’s not an easy argument here in Australia to apply. In the America electricity is cheap if it was possible I would purchase electricity from America but is not possible.

        The local power station has been sold to a Chinese consortium Chinese government, which through manipulation of power market they have forced electricity prices up and apply green scheme taxes to your electricity bill, after cut all energy cutback consumptions you try to achieve.

        Looking through the comments here today I’m very interested in going off the grid solar energy system to. It doesn’t make sense to be paying power bills that keeping getting bigger and bigger and giving the money away to rich people in foreign nations.

        • Bob_Wallace

          “It’s very difficult to reduce energy consumption”

          It is? I suppose it might be if you’ve already done all the things that can be done to minimize electricity use, but few people have.

          Now I’m now very knowledgable as to the reason that Australian electricity prices have risen but what I find on line does not support the idea that green energy is the cause.

          http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/24/australian-electricity-price-increases/

          http://bundl.com.au/blog/electricity-prices-carbon-tax/

          http://theconversation.com/why-australians-are-getting-a-raw-deal-on-electricity-prices-13296

          In fact, I find just the opposite…

          http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/rooftop-solar-reduces-the-risk-of-price-hikes-for-everyone-20543

          • Susan

            But you don’t under stand Australia; we have green taxes, Carbon taxes, green schemes, and levy, GST tax on top of all the taxes above at 10per cent that why we get big power bill. If you use more than 1000 unit of electricity the price doubles for exceeding thousand units of electricity. Then there is infrastructure tax they pay for the polls and wires of that on top of this. System access charge which runs up to about US$150 to US$500 per quarter for 1 electricity meter depending where you live.
            Then there’s the quarterly adjustment of electricity prices which continues to add carbon taxes, green levies, green taxes and any other taxes they liked introduce along the way. And there’s 160 green levies running on our power bills which are hidden and not published. The lower class single person power bills run at $125-180 a week. Middle class runs around over $200 for a single. And let’s not talk about what families are paying.

            Susan.Kindle@hotmail.com.au

          • Bob_Wallace

            Why don’t you break that down for us?

            List the percent due to needed infrastructure (poles and wires).

            List the percentage for “system access charge”.

            List the percentage for “green schemes”.

            It sounds to me like Australia has a bunch of people who are upset and trying to make rooftop solar the bad guy. When I look on line at sites that seem to be objective that is not what I’m seeing.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Here’s what I find for Aurora Energy which seems to be a Tasmania supplier.

            33.4% Generation

            5.8% Carbon Price

            4.8% Renewable Certificates

            0.4% Management Charge

            13.8% Transmission

            33.8% Distribution

            7.9% Retail (Bookkeeping/Billing Costs)

            http://www.aurora.com.au/your-home/bills-and-payments/your-bill-explained/electricity-cost-breakdown/

            When one looks at how badly Australia would suffer under increased climate change a 10.6% premium to lower CO2 seems reasonable to me. Especially since more renewables on the grid will start to bring down the cost of electricity.

            You’re paying about 25 cents per kWh? $200 per week would mean spending $28.57 per day for electricity. At 25 cents that would be 114 kWh per day. Something is wrong either with your claim or my math.

            The web says that the average house uses 18 kWh per day. At 25c that’s $4.50 per day or $13.50 per week. At 45c it would be less than $60.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

            and add in the fact that renewables reduce the wholesale price of electricity through the merit order effect. (not sure what % could be attributed to that… and, of course, those savings would have to be passed on to consumers.)

          • Steve

            Susan are you working for the Liberal/National Party? Give us some specifics for the 160 green levies?

            Not sure which planet you’re living on where people are paying $200 + for power each week. In my considerable experience in the industry a family in Tasmania might pay up to $40/week for power and that includes the fixed charges which at least where I live are around $90/quarter for a meter (not $150 – $500). The only figure that I can agree with in you post is 10% for the GST. Oh and yes, we have a Carbon Tax.

            Bob’s figures sourced from Aurora look right to me. Keep up the good work with sourcing of facts rather than just spreading lies.

    • Mark W

      I can address your question in a number of ways, first of all the you need consider whether you’re going to track the sun or have the solar panels fixed upon a roof or fixed upon the ground. Second issue is what you intend to run, you will have to have an off grid inverter capable of delivering surge current to run compressor figuration type motors like refrigerators that take huge surge current for starting, is not recommended that you buy those high frequency inverters as a tendon fail on first use.

      That 30 kilowatts a day of energy need to be harvested from Sun, however it all depends on the available sunlight and the solar capacity which you intend to install. I recommended 10 kW systems in order to cover the capacity of the loads and charging at the same time.

      Solar regulator to regulate the 10 kW of solar power coming in order to charge the batteries, be careful of these claims by manufacturers that solar regulators can handle so many amps, if they claim 20 amp they actually mean 10 Amps, as the 20 amp rating is only for a few seconds.

      Battery capacity is your biggest concern you will need to have at least four times the capacity of 30 kW stored away in order to pull you through the next day and not to cycle down the batteries, however I recommend a bigger system of batteries be installed to overcome those days of raining and cloudy days where practically no energy comes in, maybe you get 5amp to 15 amp on cloudy day, on a dark cloudy day practically zero.

      Remember your system will be dependent upon inverter you are using the voltage will dictate the system set up.

  • Ann 

    Recently a study was concluded in Australia and published on the finding of grid connected wind and solar systems energy supplied over 365 days of the year on 24 hour cycle. In the study they found, that wind and solar energy was only supplying 2% liability over that one year period meaning 98% of the year no energy was produced. Wind & solar grid power has been heavily subsidised by the government and the community. This was appalling result given the large amount of subsidies issued before renewable energy. The public needs base load power 24 hours a day not 2 per cent of energy generation over the one year; it’s not a good out come which sent shock waves to the Australian government.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Ann, give us a link to that study….

      • Ben

        The consequence of this is that grid solar renewable energy needs reliable fossil energy to be on constant backup. “A bloody Rort because it has not replaced fossil fuel energy in any way form”. And it’s like nit’s, full of parasite and that living off the top of the powerlines sucking from their infrastructure destroying the network driving up the cost of living. Look at “Mark’s W” reply how much electricity cost in Australia because of solar renewable energy. You should read up on the Salvation Army report in Australia and how many people are relying upon the Salvation Army in order to get help to paid electricity bills, as the cost of renewable energy affects the working class family to afford electricity. And why the poor class are ditching the powerlines, are using LED solar power outdoor garden lights for light and butane gas tanks to cook on, using there 12 V car battery to run their television, while having their power line disconnected trying to make ends meet.

        • Bob_Wallace

          You’re somewhat right. Somewhat.

          All generation needs backup. Every time a nuclear reactor or coal plant goes offline the grid has to have the ability to replace that generation in a hurry. Like when those two reactors went offline due to earthquake activity in Virginia a few months back.

          That’s easier to do with wind and solar because it is more dispersed and more predictable. The wind doesn’t instantly stop everywhere nor do all solar panels get blocked by clouds at the same time. Utilities can see the problem coming.

          Now I have no idea what that “bloody Rort” stuff is. I speak Californian.

          Are you trying to support Ann’s very strange claims?

          If so, could you furnish a link to this supposed study?

          Here’s what I found re: Australian electricity prices…

          “The average wholesale electricity prices for 2011-12 were the lowest (in real terms) since the market commenced in 1998.

          Even with the carbon tax, prices are not much above the long-term average of about A$50 per megawatt hour (adjusted to 2013 dollar terms).

          Recently, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) reported that wind generation is moderating wholesale electricity prices in South Australia, and when there is less wind, prices are higher.

          “http://theconversation.com/electricity-prices-fall-renewable-energy-deserves-merit-13300

          • Jason

            Don’t worry Dog, I speak their lingo: “bloody rort” means the following: “medicine man” “snake oil” “swindler”, “rip-off”, “fraud”, referring to religious evangelist “no miracles performed”, “liars”.

            And what (Ben) is referring too, the issue, that solar power is nothing but a big fraudulent fraud like those religious evangelist on television performed fake miracles on stage “ no miracles performed”, “liars” or “snake oil”.

            Lying upon fossil fuel energy, in order to be a backup their lies, with renewable energy, refer to a bloody rort.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Thanks, I get it now.

            I pretty much had figured out that Ben was tossing road apples. Now confirmed….

    • James Wimberley

      No reply from Ann of course. There’s no such study.

  • Mark W

    Living off the grid is the way to go, for years I’ve been living sustainable on energy storage meaning I have no need to be depending on the national grid. Battery storage all ways come on top compare to grid connection solar power, take grid solar power it not efficient in transferring solar energy to the national grid under MPPT system, every time a cloud come over the MPPT grid inverter system shut down drop out which can account to 40 percent loss over the day compared to off grid solar battery storage system which will continue to charge the battery even if the cloud have shaded the solar array. Recently I set up an experiment comparing the two systems, off grid battery storage and grid connection, using 1kw system side by side each having 1kw dedicated to each system over a day period, set up in a 24 V system configuration installing energy measurements meters installed on both the input and output of the systems to compare the results.

    Conclusion Finding that in MPPT solar grid connected system produced 4.7kW less in the day, compared to the battery storage system over the same time period, the main reason for this was the MPPT drops out thus shutting down the system making it inefficient in delivering energy, while the battery operated system continue to receive solar energy coming on top with a gain 4.7 kW more stored energy produced, conclusion that grid connected solar system is not efficient in transferring energy to the national grid, making off grid systems more efficient in delivering energy needs of the same time period with a 4.7 kW gain over the day.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I’ve been off the grid for over 20 years.

      When I do the math I find that I pay more per kWh for my electricity than the US average.

      Batteries are not cheap and they do need replacing every few years. Plus I have to fill in with a generator during longer periods of no sunshine. Being able to use inexpensive power from a wind farm would be a lot cheaper.

      • Mark W

        Yes I understand your position on this however it all depends where you live in Australia electricity cost is enormous that’s why I have pointed out battery storage is a better way then the grid system. My electricity cost per year account for around $8000 where I live, so batteries are considerably cheap when you are paying $8000 a year to the utility company.

        That’s why I concluded the experiment pointing out battery storage produces more energy however I can point out the cost would be considerably more than a grid connected system that was not the point I was making, my point was battery storage comes on top, however comparing costing, most people will buy a car every five years and have no problem for paying for that without complaining, batteries can last up to 15 years if looked after well and not cycle down every day.

        What is your system set up?

        • Bob_Wallace

          OK, if you’re paying well over 20 cents per kWh and don’t have net metering then you’re getting into the zone where storing will be cheaper than using the grid for your storage/backup.

          The least expensive battery option is around 13 cents per kWh (these are US cents). Running a generator on $4/gallon gas is expensive.

          My system: 1.2 kW solar with a dozen ‘golf cart’ batteries for storage. An inexpensive gasoline generator for backup. (It’s cheaper to replace a generator every few years than to repair a quality one.)

          • Mark W

            I believe the US still has very cheap electricity going less than $0.10 a kilowatt hour that’s considerably cheap in my opinion, you would not need to have a solar system or even on off grid system, it’s only when the price exceeds $0.50 a kilowatt hour that it’s more feasible to be independent from the utility company and stop purchasing their power at that price levels. No doubt you’ll be worse off given the expense that you laid out over the 20 years. I’m assuming you were never subsidised for your solar system in any way or form, nor credited for carbon emission reduction unlike the systems today which are recognised for carbon emission reduction and given subsidies which is totally wrong in my opinion, that’s one reason why you are worse off, because these subsidies should have been given to you.

            Given all the effort that you put in over 20 years you should have been recognised for that, however most governments around the world do not recognise your effort like my effort and exclude people who lay out their own expenses in order to lessen the cost on the system and reduce pollution levels. You and I well never be recognised for that. You’re not even title for a battery discount for your system, but if you get a grid connected rooftop system it’s practically fully subsidise that’s totally wrong. You and I are dependent on batteries don’t even get a cent discount on them, no subsidies for that, as we use our own money and don’t put the country in debit, not even a tax free discount, for buying USA made batteries .

          • Bob_Wallace

            Some places in the US have electricity for less than 10 cents, in some places the cost is a lot higher.

            Off-grid receives no subsidies. But in my case going off-grid allowed me to buy a sweet piece of land that probably would have been unaffordable had it had grid power close by. The utility company wanted $300,000 to hook me up. For about $10k I put in my system, including a diesel generator.

          • Mark W

            The same situation here, the utility company was asking $100,000 in order to put 2 electrical poles and a transformer, 50 meter (150f) away from the transmission line that’s why it makes me angry why the government is subsidising people with grid connected solar systems which are in a better financial position to pay for their own systems then be subsidised and hit the poor of society to pay for it.

            I spent $50,000 on batteries and solar set up, in of that which I have 12 kW system per hour which I put in place, I produce hot water with an electric hot water tank with my solar system running off 24 VDC battery set up, the system to run the refrigerator TV and lights et cetera. I have no problems with hot water as I can run hot water 24 hours a day. I’m very glad I set up my system this way because the utility company is now asking $0.55 a kilowatt-hour, plus the meter reading which is $1.50 per day plus GST tax at 10% on top of all that, which is the enormous.

            Five years ago that would only been $0.08 a kilowatt hour meter reading $0.10 and GST bill at 10%, but because of the renewable energy subsidies that blew out by 500 per cent. And where I am this year alone when up 25% yet a gain, for electricity.

            At the rate electricity is increasing by, at the end of this year 2013,I will be around $13,000, or $3.250 AU dollars per quarter which equates in America dollars $3,380 USA Dollars if I was connected to the utility company, they can stick their utility where it fits, here in Australia.

            I’m not dependent on a diesel generator however I do have one as a backup for welding purposes.

          • Tommy

            I will have to get one of those system like your’s. My power bill is running up to $2,800 for 12 weeks, gone up 23% this year. This off grid system of your’s sound like a good one, which i could install my self, I should get the power line disconnected. My system meter charge per day is running at $1.55 a day now, to sit there, because of green renewable grid connection system subsidised.
            20% of the power bill rise was to subsidised grid connected solar power payments for the rich.

          • Don

            300k is big money for power lines to be installed for a polluting power line.

    • arne-nl

      This MPPT stuff you are telling here is either complete bunkum or your inverter is broken. Grid tied inverters will adjust the power sent to the grid in accordance with what comes in. My continuously monitored grid tied inverter doesn’t lose a single Wh when clouds block the sun. Everything that comes in ends up on the grid.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jhildenminton James Hilden-Minton

    We need to include in this vision a secondary market for used EV batteries. I got to thinking about the 24kWh battery that comes in Nissan Leaf. Suppose I want to upgrade for better range in five or so years. What is the old battery worth. Well it should have at least 70% capacity left, and suppose it has 80% round trip efficiency. Now I am a Georgia Power cutomer and can buy electricity over nigh at the super off peak price of $0.05/kWh. Each night I can charge up about 17kWh for about $0.0625/kWh and use it latter in the day to aviod paying $0.09/kWh off peak hour or $0.23/kWh on peak hours 2pm-7pm June – September. Under this fee structure my used batter can provide an arbitrage value of about $420 per year. If I keep using this for another 5 years, I arrive at over $2000 in value (minus equipment I may need to tie it to my house). So that is just one direct application for my used battery. Other folks may be able to get even greater value out of it, hense the need for a used battery market. If someone were to offer me more than $2000 for it, I might sell it to them. Otherwise it has definite value to me as home backup power.

Back to Top ↑