I have 1000 litres of heating oil in my back garden which is hardly unflamable. 10MWh of fuel.
Every other fire you can stop if you're right there and you catch it. If a battery pack starts to go, you might have a few seconds before the local environment is incompatible with life.
LFP (rarely used for cars) is fairly stable. And sodium batteries are even more stable.
The interesting impact will be on the grid itself. Why connect to the grid if you are self-sufficient?
Then the grid starts to degrade due to lack of maintenance, and the people that can't afford local storage become dependent essentially on a government maintained service.
Or should we be planning localized storage and grids at the same time, so we get the benefits of both scale and resiliency and redundancy.
People will be parking a mobile 100kWh battery at their house every night. We need integrated V2G and grid upgrades to make the most of this opportunity.
However, you need to consider industrial and commercial use as well as domestic. Can you power a smelter using local solar?
I think that starts to bleed into the "pre paid meter" vs contract argument.
but practically the difference between total self sufficiency and 90% is willingness to fork out cash.
I currently have a 13kwhr battery, which covers my domestic power needs for 75% of the year. (we'll start to draw on the grid in the next few weeks.) but in the dead of winter it'll only cover 20-50% of my daily need (excluding the car)
but for car power, thats a different beast. Even though I don't commute by car, with the charging at home, I now use around the same amount of power as the uk average house. (even with solar and storage. pre electic car era. )
Many services that we use in our daily lives are government maintained services, so electricity is no different than water, sewage, internet, roads, railroads, post, emergency services, public education, public health systems, trash and recycling services, parks and recreational spaces, disaster relief and response, and others.
We should absolutely ensure these services continue to be funded and maintained, because they're often not profitable to deliver. Especially to the sprawling population of the United States. That’s exactly why government support exists and should exist: to guarantee access to essential services that markets alone won’t reliably or equitably provide.
Battery costs might go down, but the space they take up on your property costs money as well, which only gets more expensive the more urban you are.
The island of Eigg has a micro-grid. Not individual houses, a micro-grid.
The UK is going to be a wind power island not a solar power island, and definitely not an individual solar power island.
Very few people go fully off-grid, reality is people don't want that. Cost/benefit just isn't there unless you live off in the woods.
So instead, market structures react when penetration % becomes non-neglible. First you start seeing things like fixed-fees (minimum prices to maintain a grid connection, or "first x kWh are included"). And then you start seeing like what's in California with NEM3: the grid-export prices drop to "we don't want your excess solar" so people are incentivized to buy batteries. But because batteries make a system more complicated and expensive, people buy smaller systems overall.
So the "too much solar creates a disconnection spiral and the system falls apart" thing is a bit of fear-mongering. The system adapts, the changes in pricing create different cost/benefit ratios, and if nothing else, new AI datacenters will gobble up any power that doesn't need to flow to neighborhoods.
- every household, can do that, _if_ they have a roof. appartment buildings may not have enough roof for all the people in it.
- for those who can't access that, (that includes people, but also the industry, your mobile phone provider, etc.) prices will get worse.
- the fire brigade will love industrial-size battery fires in the neighbourhood.
So once the improvements in power transmission are done prices should come down for everyone.
The "improvements" in power transmission is about building more lines, these lines are not going to be significantly cheaper to maintain than previous generations, and if these investment/maintenance costs are shared among less, that means more expensive electricity. Currently, in my country, electricity transport and distribution are about one third of total cost.
Grid scale batteries will also primarily reduce cost by offering arbitration.
Any time you're exporting to the grid, you're losing out - the rates are never good. Check out the OP's graph. His setup is oversized by about 2x. He's exporting to the grid for most of the day, which is hardly useful, then pulling from the grid after 6pm - the worst of both worlds. Downsizing the solar setup 2x and investing that into batteries would be much better.
The overlap with people who have their own solar-compatible roof is probably large.
The answer is somewhere in the neighborhood of as much as one can safely store and afford accepting that batteries have a short life. Much like wells in cold climates the batteries should be in an underground insulated vault made from higher quality concrete as to keep fire hazards away from the home. That is also where whole-home generators and fuel belong, in their own vault so they can be easily maintained without having to rent an excavator to dig out the tank.
Which aligns with as much as one can afford. If one calculated an exact amount they would not be able to get the results you are getting.
does it? Panels are not the most expensive part of the system any more. Overcapacity of panels isn't the bottleneck any more. Battery capacity or roof space might be instead.
I think it's called a 'grid'.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/10/south-da...
It just makes much more sense to have a big battery where the local substation is, than for everyone to install megawatts of battery individually.
Are there any other long term high density electric storage technologies that can fit in someones basement, garage, or even apartment closet?
To achieve volumetric energy density of hydrogen at room temperature that's on par with batteries (and that's charitably assuming you're using inefficient resistance heating with batteries) you need to store it at a pressure in the order of 100 bar.
You're better off with batteries realistically speaking.
In any case, it all depends on what you want to stand next to. A large explosion, or a multi-day metal fire releasing clouds of hydrogen flouride.
I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle - maybe two weeks of storage. Though of course prices change all the time so the correct action will change and you need to rerun the numbers as things degrade to decide your next action.
My 1.8kWh system at 20% output covers a great percentage of my baseline usage during the day! I'm probably going to add a small battery so I'm not penalized for sending energy back to the grid, but I'm not gonna need much until my kids get older and want new gadgets. The cool part about modern electronics is that we're generally getting more efficient too with newer tech. If I replace the old freezer, my baseline usage drops 20%+.
I don't disagree with your point that sometimes nature is simply just working too hard against your efforts, but I also wrote all this to say that some people need to really do the math and not rely on "common knowledge". Energy efficiency has come an extremely long way in the past decade and much of what was true when residential solar first started popping off is now outdated.
Way too much to fit on a house though.
I do say:
> As solar panels increase in efficiency, it might be more sensible to replace the panels on my roof, or add some onto a shed.
Even in the darkest days of winter, they still generate something (unless they're physically covered in snow) - but they'd need to be 20x as efficient to power my typical winter usage.
I suspect that something like 3x'ing the solar (under 100k) would then let the author get away with much, much less battery, and result in a net cost savings.
But that is a super interesting question that immediately comes to mind.
I am pretty sceptical about batteries and see overbuilding renewables plus bitcoin mining to monetize excess as a more viable solution.
My guess is the differences in either choice aren't huge, as both solar and battery storage keeps getting cheaper.
Having an electric vehicle can really help, also. It basically soaks up excess solar power of an outsized installation during much of the year (making the payback time on the outsized installation very good), and can be charged away from the house during a few low-chance bad winter days when the outsized installation is enough to power the house but not the car. Electric cars are charged fully about 3 times per month on average in the US, so working around that with smart charging is not a complex challenge in the next decade.
Higher the cycle life, lower the levelised cost of storage and this is what matters in my opinion. Best is to have some type of long term storage like a Diesel generator only for estimated 1-2 weeks of the year depending on location where it will be needed.
I feel V2G with 3 days backup and a house low power mode which can be utilised in emergencies might solve even this issue.
Oversizing solar to the extent possible for winter loads is also ideal because so far that does not seem to be the driving cost.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-sodium-ion-batte...
I feel that long term energy storage will be split between thermal and non thermal in interesting ways and the market for them will open up after first level of daily disruption
I hadn't really thought about thermal tech in such extreme terms until your comment, but to me it appears to be the tape storage of our times. There will always be a fair amount of infrastructure hidden that almost nobody knows about, but it's going to be dwarfed in active usage by HDDs or SDDs.
The tech advantages really are that big for batters and other solid state energy tech over the moving parts thermal variety. Thermal tech hasn't had an upgrade like LTO-6 (or is it 7 now) and is pretty much at the end of its possible engineered capabilities, but batteries are just barely getting started on what they are capable of.
LNG or propane would be far superior fuel types for long term standby generators. Periodically exercising a machine that runs on CH4 results in very minimal buildup on internal components. Liquid fuels are much dirtier and can also go bad.
Diesel is used in situations where you can afford all of the crazy maintenance. It's worth the trade off if you can.
Diesel plus <any other kind of fuel> isn't available on cheap residential units I'm aware of, particularly as the ignition and fuel injection mechanisms are much more complex than a gasoline/propane mechanism.
Not without exception; there's some draw down after dinner even on the charge up sunny months. But a couple kWh against a 1MW pack is not super super notable. If it were cycle count alone degrading battery it'd still be an almost 5000 year battery (before becoming a 0.8MW battery).
As others are pointing out, we have stabilized chemistries even more, so 5k cycles is pretty low at this point.
Unless you live in a location without much sunlight, it’s better to invest in a solar powered system with a transfer switch to go off grid.
If you size the system appropriately it can recharge the battery by day during an outage and now you can operate off-grid for a very long time.
Diesel generators come with maintenance overhead that adds up year over year. They also contribute nothing during normal times, as opposed to a solar install which can offset electricity costs or even earn money.
If you live somewhere dark this is less helpful, though.
Consumption also matters. Some people have eye-popping amounts of electricity consumption while other households get by with far less. The difference, including heating and cooling costs, is surprisingly large between the highest and lowest households.
A good diesel generator is going to need very little maintenance operating few hundred hours per year.
Why do people talk about engines like they are unreliable? They are modern marvels.
My Powerwall quietly sits there charged and waiting to be under load, and charges to full when storm mode is activated (or I activate it manually). It has a 10 year warranty, 15 years if part of a virtual power plant (which my storage participates in with the local utility). It requires no maintenance. I also received a 30% federal tax credit for the Powerwall, which the building will not receive for a generator.
TLDR Diesel generators where you might be without mains for a while and intend to replenish the fuel with deliveries during the outage, fossil gas for use cases where gas delivery pipelines are available (urban, suburban), propane for offgrid use cases (rural, cell towers, etc) where fuel longevity is a concern.
Generators need to be exercised and maintained. You are committing to fire that thing up for a few hours every month, just to make sure it's in running order when you need it (I used to work next to a hospital that fired them every week).
This can easily be automated, Generac will handle testing for residential generators.
You're sadly describing my situation. Dec sees 6 hours of light, less even, and while the sun does get above the horizon, it doesn't get over the top of the forest.
(The trees have no leaves, but there's still a lot of tree trunks between me and sun.)
Bah.
https://enron.com/pages/the-egg?srsltid=AfmBOoqW03cqyIhQ0OlG...
Because of this, it feels like we should already have enough transmission capacity in a decent part of the network to cope with a re-organisation of where the sources and sinks are placed. Yes, we might need to do some work in the last mile, especially if V2G takes off, but things aren't nearly as bad as one might naively assume.
[1] https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-sto...
[2] https://www.neso.energy/news/britains-electricity-explained-...
Your sources really only apply to Britain and other deïndustrialising countries. American and European energy demand is rising due to electrification and AI.
Yes.
https://yle-fi.translate.goog/a/74-20138415?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x...
It was actually 1000 times that much.
They also test and publish yearly the latest battery combos.
Being 100% independent is just completely unnecessary.
I concluded that we're all going to need much bigger gardens.
Much cheaper, and you get a ton of extra free power in the summer. The only downside is a typical house roof doesn't have enough space. But a typical house doesn't have enough space for a 1 MWh battery either so...
With 3 EV's in the house, and a 12.8kWp array, with a 10kWh battery, charging overnight in the winter on the cheap EV tariff (7p per kWh vs 27p per kWh) and exporting during the spring, summer and autumn at 15p per kWh I'm seeing an electricity bill of below 0.
Of course, with a shift in energy production to renewables, all of that maths may get upended, but for now, I'm going to break even far before my original estimates.
clearly, you're not in the US as renewables are considered the problem here and not part of the solution. i'm waiting for the administration to come out with clawback plans for all of the subsidies for home solar and even the EV subsidies. gotta pay for those tax cuts some how
However, from how you describe it, you are getting lower costs than me! My electricity bill is lower than the standing charge, but this adds up to more than what you are paying. Train fares also seem to be costing me more, although I have done well out of compensation for late trains recently, so my trips to the south of England are averaging out at around £100 for the return journey.
I am beginning to question my life choices. Frugal was the wrong way to go. Why do I need this cardiovascular exertion when I could be getting around for less in a two-tonne EV?
I think I missed the boat. Getting a feed in tariff is far from given these days and the government grants for solar ended about a decade ago.
I think e-methanol synthesis is ~%50% efficient, so double the solar. Doesn't sound so bad.
Now if you could synthesize methane you could push it into the gas grid and run the meters backwards, thereby avoiding the need for storage... actually methane synthesis is even more efficient, >70%.
Edit: I again made the mistake to comment on a thread dealing with energy x politics. Sorry, I'll try not to do that again. I'm out.
As a first guess, one would think it makes more sense to eat 30% loss (so you need 1/0.7=143% installed capacity) than to need 200% capacity plus batteries since it's night about half the time on average. And afaik HVDC is more on the order of ~15% loss
The trick is the "HV" part. China is already running 1100kv on some of their HVDC lines. Transmission losses decrease with the square of voltage, so any increment from that point would be very substantial.
That's just me being snarky, but we've been scaling towards this for decades, we just haven't fully gotten there. We can probably solve the technical problems, it seems the main issue to building a fully-connected worldwide power grid is that the cost of scaling that much isn't worth it (yet).
One of the problems with our reliance on oil is that so much comes from an unstable part of the world (although the oil itself contributes to the instability).
Cables under the ocean can be cut by anyone who can get to them with a submarine.
You would be look at cable literally going around the world - at least a good proportion of half way round to be useful. They will be vulnerable one way or another at some point.
Then there is reliability. There have been some fairly bad failures of national power grids. A failure in a global grid would be a lot worse.
which being very approximate is 15k gbp/year
The ROI of a large PV farm must be substantially better than a home scale install.
Should I interpret the 20-25% returns as being, your annual savings on the utility bill are 20-25% of the cost of your PV install?
Roughly speaking the electricity is about €0.06 with about €0.20 in taxes on top. So offsetting consumption nets me about €0.26 cents per kWh.
The installation of a 2800kWp system cost me about €2600 and generates between 2400-2750kWh annually, so about €650 euro. In a 10 year timespan that’s an IRR of 20%, creeping up to 25% for 20 years.
Plus, when people compare the cost of home solar vs utility solar, they often ignore all of the infrastructure (especially last mile infrastructure) that's needed to get the power from the utility scale solar farm to someone's house.
If you live somewhere with expensive electricity and decent sun (California, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, the Carolinas, etc) it's usually worthwhile to put solar on your home. It's less effective than if someone competent were to spend the same money improving the grid, but in this day and age that's a lot to ask.
Batteries on the other hand feel like they take less space and thus could be colocated near consumption without having to be on consumer property. Warehouse size within the city. Transmission costs would be minimal.
Roofs have to handle several tons of wind pressure, snow, people walking on them and so on. They can handle solar panels no problem - which is why it's such a good idea to put solar panels on them.
Even with a large house, homelab, and an EV, we barely pay for electricity over the year. Doesn't seem like a con to me.
We can still individually make better choices, and also eat our vegetables, etc, but in the aggregate public policy is more efficient to make the large scale changes we need
I have a grid detachable PV system with battery. It's been invaluable for grid blackouts in my area to have the capability even as I have paid (at least for the first couple years) a higher price per kwh for it. Over more years, it's really nice to have price insulation against utility price increase.
Actually, it's the other way around.
A rooftop solar doesn't require much: the land is already there (it's yours), there isn't any bullshit with permits, all you need is a ladder or a bucket truck, a few ultra cheap panels, an aluminum frame, an inverter and a few dozen feet worth of wiring.
A large scale solar farm however? The developer needs to find suitable land (challenging to do when competing against big ag), there's permit paperwork involved because solar farms ain't agriculture, they need to pay for a high voltage connection to the nearest substation, the huge ass panels need a really solid support construction that can withstand wind and weather and that needs a solid foundation as well, you need thousands of feet worth of wiring, complex and massive inverters, lightning arrestors, god knows what.
Oh and you get resilience against natural disasters for free on top of that. Some drunk driver plows into a power pole, some redneck shoots up some birds and kills the power line (yes, that happens so often that utilities release yearly reminders to please leave the birds alone), or a heavy storm / flood takes out entire substations for weeks, whatever - you throw the transfer switch, kill off all the non-essential consumers and can easily ride through a week worth of outage.
The answer is yes: it is a lot easier to make a PV farm than a home scale install!
Local solar requires far less grid, and expanding the grid is one of the greatest (political, not technical) challenges of this era in the US.
Unless you're accounting for the grid costs, the "cost" of utility vs. rooftop is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
As far as a "con" the only con is that the costs in the US for rooftop solar are multiples higher of other places, like Australia. That's the con. Australia also shows that rooftop solar is great for grid in general, greatly driving down costs.
Of course, rooftop solar is terrible for utilities, so you are going to encounter tons of astroturf denouncing it all over the web, and even face to face. Utilities are fundamentally threatened by consumres taking over more and more of their own electricity responsibility, especially as batteries get super cheap.
Don't underestimate the value of decentralization in some scenarios.
There are many benefits to letting homeowners do it. First of all you get a lot more solar deployed in much shorter time, because you mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to the effort immediately instead of having them wait for a solar plant. Homeowners pay for it, provide the area for it, hire and organize the workforce - small scale but "everywhere at once" so to speak.
The government/state/county doesn't need to wait for the land to be available, raise the money, build infrastructure to transfer electricity from a new large solar site to the consumers and so on. So for the "state" the ROI is better with home installs.
>responsibility for the climate crisis to consumers rather than industrial energy providers.
That's where the responsibility belongs through. Most of us drove fossil fuel cars for years, which is the largest single emission source. In democracies we could have voted for guys wanting gas to cost 50 bucks per gallon, or who would prohibit any more oil and gas to be traded. We didn't. We could have refused to travel for vacations, refused to buy goods shipped from overseas and so on - but we didn't. So this is on us.
One thing that could possibly work better IMO is something like a small local renewable fuel economy where excess power is used to produce hydrocarbon fuel by catalysis of electrolyzed hydrogen with carbon sources, and individuals can purchase this fuel to recover the energy, or possibly the power plant could use it during solar lows.
The advantage of this type of system is that it’s not really capacity limited, as long as you have enough fuel storage, which is simple to build more of.
of course, you could just use alcohols distilled from fermented plants instead, but that’s not as sexy.
I started that way before going fully off-grid to avoid subsidising the fossil fuel industry here. Plus ~70% of my bill was fixed charges, and they wouldnt pay for excess solar generation above what I used.
I think this sort of mega home battery bomb could be avoided through legislation by offering free grid connections. So I 'pay-in' 10kWh today, and maybe my account is credited with '5kWh' for later use. I'm sure we would see a much bigger uptake of home solar with such a scheme.
So instead of 1:1 credits, the power company buys it from you at what they would pay their producers (read, several times less than what they charge you).
It's a fucking scam.
My power company limits the size of panels and time limits net metering (they don't even do it anymore for new solar installs). So you can either not do solar or go completely 100% off grid with only one step.
It's a fucking scam. The engineer justified it to us when he was signing off on our solar install as "well when we do 1:1 credits c that's like you stealing from your neighbors. They don't want to pay your the full retail cost. They want to pay you what we pay the power producers."
When I asked if that meant my neighbors would have the ability to pay less, he just sort of looked flatly at me.
An absolute scam.
There are several things you might want to consider:
- wind, there are smallish turbines that you can put on your roof that generate a few kwh. Also when the sun doesn't shine. Extended periods without any wind at all are rare. 2-3 weeks would be a lot. That probably drops the amount of battery you actually need quite a lot.
- Second hand EVs are relatively cheap and come with some affordable batteries that are probably larger and cheaper per kwh than most commercial domestic storage solutions. Not for everyone but if you can wire things together, that might not be a bad option. Especially if you can get ,a good deal on some well used EV with a half decent battery. Relatively low loads might increase the life that battery has if you just use the car for storage.
- You don't have to generate the power next to the battery. Some cars can provide power to your house; when your house battery runs out, you can just use public chargers and drive back and forth to top up your house batteries. A bit of a chore but probably better than investing in batteries you don't need most of the year. Not a bad option if you live off grid. Batteries on wheels in general are a thing. Electrical semi trucks come with > 500-600kwh typically. That's a lot of power that you can move between your home and your charger. Container sized batteries are a thing. If you want to, you can get about 3-4mwh on your property. It's not going to be cheap. But it's doable. The point here is not that you can have a huge amount but that you could stretch a modest amount quite far by simply driving to and from the charger. Of course if you have a grid connection, using that is more convenient and cheaper.
- The capacity factor of your batteries is going to be a function of how often you cycle them. If you rarely cycle them fully, they are going to be relatively expensive. So, while hoarding batteries might make you feel nice and comfortable, it's not a great economical choice to make until batteries become a lot cheaper.
- The money you save on not paying for grid power needs to be balanced with the cost of a battery and how long it will last you (10-20 years?). If your monthly bill is 100, you might spend 1200$ per year and 12000$ for 10 years. So, that's your budget for a huge battery. If you factor in that it will have a low capacity factor, it might last quite long. Twenty or even more years. I have a lithium ion battery screwdriver that's nearly 20 years old; still fine. Because I rarely use it. So your budget could be 20-30K$ Adjust as needed based on grid prices and usage.
- As others mention, generators are relatively cheap and they do work if you can stand the noise and exhaust fumes. Not clean. But relatively cheap.
It's a valid thought experiment to repeat until the cost adds up. Your opportunity cost while you don't invest in this stuff is basically what you will continue to spend on the grid. Which is probably not horrible for most people. Until those cost curves cross, you are better off waiting. Or compromising and buying a battery that won't solve the whole problem but is cheap enough that it will earn itself back in a reasonable time.
It's trade off between need and cost. If you absolutely need to be off grid, it's doable if you have the space and resources. But it's not going to be cheap. Until then, some hybrid solution is probably more optimal.
Huh? A single Tesla Powerwall 3 stores just about the same 13.5 kWh the author describes as being the battery size they need [1]. And they are by far not the only ones offering ready-to-install battery packs.
Fully electric vehicles with vehicle-to-grid wallboxes enable even larger systems.
The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades: https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
But also, the expensive thing about batteries is typically the amount of power they can produce. The post used lithium ion batteries as a reference point, and those typically have a power rating between 1 and 4 hours - meaning they can fully discharge an entire summer's worth of stored energy in 4 hours... which is probably not something you need to pay for.
If you want a ton of really cheap long term energy storage, you'd look into a technology more like hydrogen fuel cells. The raw power (for standard home, 10 kW is plenty overkill) is going to be more expensive than lithium, but for storage you just need a bunch of hydrogen stored somewhere safe (probably buried underground in your yard). That's much, much cheaper than lithium ion batteries on a per kWh basis, especially if you are scaling up into the MWh territory.
And, the other big cost saving solution is to just add more panels. It means you'll be overproducing in the summer and you'll have to curtail, but some curtailment in the summer is a lot cheaper than finding a way to ferry all of that energy into the winter. Then you have extra panels in the winter and you don't need as much storage to be fully self sufficient.
I know the tech is not quite there yet, but it’s getting closer every year.
After modeling scenarios based on historical usage PER HOUR, I was able to show that if we had enough solar generation during peak late afternoon hours, we would be able to ‘survive the night’ on batteries until morning solar generation resumed. This means my 14kw solar panels coupled with 3 batteries gets me completely off grid for 9 months out of the year. That’s not bad considering I get 7ft of snow during winter months and I am surrounded by very tall trees.
Optimize on hourly generation not daily, most solar companies use DAILY numbers without a clue on hourly usage. I currently get 0.08$ for every 1$ in electric production, so there is very little benefit in producing electricity when you don’t use it. Optimize your system based on your usage not on DAILY production. If electric companies would give me credit of say 0.90$ per 1$ then the equation changes, but electric companies would rather benefit from your overproduction, be careful as these systems are not cheap!
thelastgallon•5h ago
joemazerino•5h ago
Jeremy1026•4h ago
KaiserPro•4h ago
However, if you were wanting to use pure lead acid batteries for your house, because you'd be doing slow charge/discharge you'd probably be able to get away with just 1100 130ah lead acid car batteries.
I mean you'd be optimising for peak current, which isn't what you'd want. However it could be interesting to see what happens when you have ~500mega Amps at 48v. (24Mw would heat your radiators up pretty quick. )
for lithium, then you'd need 12-14 secondhand tesla/polstar batteries, which if they caught fire, might be a challenge to contain.
giveita•4h ago
bot403•4h ago
KaiserPro•4h ago
mnw21cam•1h ago
LiFePO3 batteries don't take as much wear from cycling, so they usually wear out from time elapsed instead of over-use. It's economically sensible to cycle LiFePO3 batteries as frequently as possible to get as much "benefit" out of the investment. They're great for time-shifting energy production by charging them at a cheap time of day and discharging them when you need the energy at an expensive time of day.
Ylpertnodi•4h ago
KaiserPro•4h ago
rswail•4h ago
People will park them at home every night, and probably somewhere with a charging point during the day.
Smart house energy management should be able to pick up on that usage pattern and use the car battery for the house while making sure the car is kept ready for use.
In the same way that wifi/mobile/satellite comms can keep us "always connected", the changes in power generation and storage are going to keep us "fully charged".
nxm•4h ago
heresie-dabord•4h ago
Vehicle-to-load ("V2L") is currently offered in vehicles made by Hyundai, Ford, GM, Volkswagen, Volvo, Mitsubishi and Nissan (the new LEAF).
Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) is more ambitious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid