Morgan Stanley expects Tesla to disrupt electricity providers

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!