Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

stephendv

They estimate that Tesla will bring the cost of energy storage down to $150/kWh by 2020: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/06/who_will_kill_power_companies_tesla_says_morgan_stanley/

Other interesting snippets:

“Tesla will produce as many cells from its GigaFactory as are currently produced by all worldwide battery manufacturers combines”

waynefromnscanada

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

If true, if real, if it happens - - we shall be seeing some HUGE changes coming down the pipe! Changes I'd LOVE to see!

Photowhit

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

Seems we'll be going backward...

I had a 24v 804Ah lift battery delivered for $2525, for 19.3 Kwh...$2525/19.3= $131Kw!

Hope to get a lot more Kwhs out of it...

stephendv

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

Photowhit wrote: »

I had a 24v 804Ah lift battery delivered for $2525, for 19.3 Kwh...$2525/19.3= $131Kw!

Yeah, one thing notable in the report is that Morgan Stanley are so bullish on Tesla because they estimate that their competitors will come to market with a $500/kWh battery. So can only assume that they've completely ignored lead acid as a competitor.

Photowhit

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

I really haven't been following, so is this a lithium Ferris?

stephendv

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

I'd expect so. Tesla's storage tech is meant for their cars, so it's bound to be Lithium based.

zoneblue

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

Photowhit wrote: »

Seems we'll be going backward...

I had a 24v 804Ah lift battery delivered for $2525, for 19.3 Kwh...$2525/19.3= $131Kw!

Hope to get a lot more Kwhs out of it...

Their measure of per kWh capacity is not directly comparable between chemistrys because of differing cycle lifes and DOD range.

The way to do this in an apples for apples way is like this:
http://forum.solar-electric.com/showthread.php?23898-GBS-LiFePo4-20-and-40ah-batts&p=195760#post195760

Roughly put, a lithium bank stores about 2.7 times more energy over its lifetime

Photowhit

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

zoneblue wrote: »

Roughly put, a lithium bank stores about 2.7 times more energy over its lifetime

I'm glad this figure works for you, I may not agree, all batteries are different. Forklift batteries are regularly discharged 80% in some cases on a daily basis! The argument for a smaller battery bank, since they can be drawn down more doesn't hold water, when you need the extra capacity to maintain life once your smaller battery bank has discharged.

Glad you like them, hope they work for you, don't agree with your statement in terms of off grid use. To meet my needs and standards I would need just as large a lithium bank as my lead acid bank, at which point the wasted capacity becomes VERY expensive.

zoneblue

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

Its a rough model, the tech is as yet unproven. But which of my (admittedly dodgy) assumptions did you find wrong?

Photowhit wrote: »

I'm glad this figure works for you, I may not agree, all batteries are different. Forklift batteries are regularly discharged 80% in some cases on a daily basis! The argument for a smaller battery bank, since they can be drawn down more doesn't hold water, when you need the extra capacity to maintain life once your smaller battery bank has discharged.

Glad you like them, hope they work for you, don't agree with your statement in terms of off grid use. To meet my needs and standards I would need just as large a lithium bank as my lead acid bank, at which point the wasted capacity becomes VERY expensive.

That model assumes the same ratio of DOD for both banks. One half cycle per day. ie for lead 25% and for lithium 40%. Two days autononmy in both cases. The extra overall capacity comes from the slightly deeper DOD and the greater cycle and calendar life.
Tesla arent spending 5B on a factory just based on my dodgy model... i doubt.

PNjunction

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

Photowhit wrote: »

Glad you like them, hope they work for you, don't agree with your statement in terms of off grid use. To meet my needs and standards I would need just as large a lithium bank as my lead acid bank, at which point the wasted capacity becomes VERY expensive.

Just some clarification, not trying to make you switch from what works for you ...

Please keep in mind that these are "high-C" cells designed for EV, where you could easily pull 30C or more when accellerating or encountering regenerative feedback. They are meant for *power* applications, and not energy-applications like ours. Most consumers get this mixed up and unknowingly purchase EV type cylindrical cells for even small projects which cost significantly more than prismatics ....

These are NOT what you use with an off-grid energy-application bank, where one typically runs 0.1 to 0.2C to make it through the night. Instead of high-C cylindricals, the best use are the large prismatics, like GBS, CALB, Winston, etc. Even there, with the typical comfortable charge-discharge rate of 1C, that is something a house-bank will never encounter. But it will be able to deliver HUGE short-term loads, much larger than you'd be able to do with a Pb bank. And unlike the motive-power floor sweeper batteries, you won't be suffering a large voltage drop when you go deeper than 50% DOD. You get nearly full performance down to 90% or so - but nobody in their right mind wants to go there.

As far as using the same capacity lifepo4 as your existing lead-acid bank, let's say you only design for a 50% DOD, the one thing you encounter is a nearly exponential cycle-life improvement the shallower you go in DOD. Thus while they are rated at 2K cycles at 80% DOD, at 70% you get 5000 - as measured by CALB. By only taking it down to 50% DOD, your cycle life could easily be 10K or more. BUT, nobody has actually done this yet - these are predictions, and to my knowledge nobody has taken these cells to Dalhousie U. for a more accurate prediction. Still, these batteries didn't come about yesterday. Many are successfully using their original banks installed 5 years ago and still going strong.

Thus, with lifepo4, you are looking at long-term savings to counteract the current upfront costs, especially as solar users that are accustomed to designing for no more than 50% DOD to allow for some additional unexpected loads or poor solar insolation periods. In fact, if one were to design for 50% DOD ops, then charging requirements are even simpler since you can easily go PSOC with say a 90-40 DOD range, giving your cells an easy life by never spending a lot of time trying to reach a full charge.

Photowhit

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

PNjunction wrote: »

... Thus while they are rated at 2K cycles at 80% DOD, at 70% you get 5000 - as measured by CALB. By only taking it down to 50% DOD, your cycle life could easily be 10K or more. BUT, nobody has actually done this yet - these are predictions,...

As you educate me about Lithium, perhaps I can pass along info about Forklift/traction batteries, our host states "... In a typical solar electric system they will normally last for about 20 years or more. We have been selling these for over 25 years and have the utmost confidence in their reliability. " Shallow cycling benefits both batteries, 20 years would represent some 7000 cycles, and I could point to sites stating they have gotten 30yrs out of one(though I won't suggest that's likely or normal) 20years isn't a prediction, but can be considered an expectation.

I welcome those who wish to invest in lithium, my original solar panel cost nearly $10 a watt, and someone paid @$30 a watt for my Photowatt panels from 1980. I knew there were cheaper and easier ways to provide my energy for van camping the Ozarks, but already realized I hated the noise of generators in a camp site and wanted to experiment with this new technology.

Photowhit

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

zoneblue wrote: »

That model assumes the same ratio of DOD for both banks. One half cycle per day. ie for lead 25% and for lithium 40%. Two days autononmy in both cases. The extra overall capacity comes from the slightly deeper DOD and the greater cycle and calendar life.
Tesla arent spending 5B on a factory just based on my dodgy model... i doubt.

The link you provided shows a 50% DOD for Lead acid and 80% for Lithium, hence my comment, perhaps you intended a different link?

I hope and suspect the Tesla factory will be doing more than high draw car batteries, I do hope we find a better storage, perhaps lithium ferrous phosphate or some other lithium chemistry will be the answer. Just want to make real comparisons, large traction batteries are different and have different traits, but a minimal change at this point. Most don't understand the longevity advantage or the possible cost savings over the life time of the battery. Either type will require proper care and a sizable investment. An 800ah 24v bank(yes should have been 48v) would cost much more(2x+?) than my current traction battery, don't know that I could expect double the life out of one.

PNjunction

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

Photowhit wrote: »

As you educate me about Lithium, perhaps I can pass along info about Forklift/traction batteries,

That lifetime is great for sure! Then again, so are Edison NiFe cells. But I don't think I'll be taking them camping, nor fitting an EV with one.

PNjunction

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

Photowhit wrote: »

I hope and suspect the Tesla factory will be doing more than high draw car batteries, I do hope we find a better storage, perhaps lithium ferrous phosphate or some other lithium chemistry will be the answer.

You may be waiting forever. How many "breakthrough" battery technologies do we see that are only investor-bait, live only in a lab, or are designed to be sold / controlled by only one supplier. Permanent vaporware in many instances - they have to make it to market, and even that doesn't guarantee success.

The key issue is that large prismatic lifepo4 cells, which are ideal for energy-storage applications like ours, is here today for the common man, (has been for about 5 years now) available from a number of suppliers, and a number of competing manufacturers. Stick to quality ones of course. They are not unobtainium, nor are limited to those who would love nothing more than to lock you into a single-vendor proprietary walled-garden after you have patiently waited for a decade or more.

I guess what I'm saying is that one doesn't have to depend on the automotive EV industry to take advantage of lifepo4 now, which is an entirely different application and is super easy already.

At any rate, I called the lifepo4 cheerleaders and naysayers bluff by actually buying some, and by putting it to the test of their claims. So far so good - and most importantly, have broken through some of the myths in regards to "balance" obsession put forward by those who promote unsound operational practices, or are pushing trash quality that needs to have that poor quality masked by an external balancing circuit.

zoneblue

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

PW, my comparison was for AGM v LiFePo4. Your forklift bank, will have a greater usable DOD range, and a greater cycle life, both more 'lithium like', agreed. And the price is lower, and it would be interesting to run numbers on traction. However what it gains on those areas i suspect it will lose on charge cycle efficiency, whch i understand is somewhere down in the 80% region? Lithium OTOH is up around 99%.

Dont get me wrong im no lithlium fan boy ... yet. While they may deliver 2.7 times more Wh over their life than AGM, they also cost 2.6 times more.

My ears just prick up naturally enough, given lithiums ease of use, when they mentioned a 2 fold price drop. (Article says that Teslas current cost to produce is 250/kWh, but that tesla already produce cheaper than anyone else. Hence current retail near 3-500/kWh). They also said that the new factory will also make stationary RE banks, although i wouldnt have said that was panasonics expertise. So well see.

One thing is absolute for sure, if lead acid was ever going to get cheaper it would have done it by now. OTOH Lihium, in all its guises, can only go one way... down.

PNjunction

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

zoneblue wrote: »

.. One thing is absolute for sure, if lead acid was ever going to get cheaper it would have done it by now. OTOH Lihium, in all its guises, can only go one way... down.

And that's GREAT for the consumer who wants to stay with lead! When lifepo4 starts to really compete with upfront costs with lead, that will either keep a lid on lead prices, or perhaps even drive lead prices down further. It would behoove lead-acid users to promote lifepo4 with gusto!

westbranch

Re: Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

Photowhit wrote: »

I hope and suspect the Tesla factory will be doing more than high draw car batteries,

I see that there are a lot of similarities with a high draw Li battery and Peaker Plants or standby plants full of batteries...fed by solar or wind