Solid pricing information for large quantities of batteries is hard to get, but GM recently disclosed their price to be $145/kWh, and apparently LG Chem's other customers are paying around ~$100 more/kWh [1].
Is your $0.11/kWh price just for the stored amount at $200/kWh? That conversion factor to kWh-stored prices is more favorable than I've been using, as I've been assuming about ~1000 cycles worth of storage, but then I don't really have a good number for that.
Since not all energy will need to be stored, and much (most?) can be used right away, then it will increase the overall cost of energy only by the X% that needs to be stored. So if solar is $0.05/kWh, and 50% can be used right away, then the overall cost for solar + storage would be $0.105/kWh on the generation side. Which is quite competitive already.
> Is your $0.11/kWh price just for the stored amount at $200/kWh? That conversion factor to kWh-stored prices is more favorable than I've been using, as I've been assuming about ~1000 cycles worth of storage, but then I don't really have a good number for that.
Yeah. I don't really have good numbers but Powerwalls have a 10 year guarantee iirc and many batteries have a 5 year guarantee so I was using a higher number.
> Solid pricing information for large quantities of batteries is hard to get, but GM recently disclosed their price to be $145/kWh, and apparently LG Chem's other customers are paying around ~$100 more/kWh [1].
GM isn't selling it to consumers at $200/kwh but is buying them from LG Chem and its a deal for far larger production runs. GM is going to get a much better deal than you or I [who will only buy a single bank of batteries every 5 years].
I just read that the Tesla Powerwall has a warranty to 5,000 cycles [1], which is 5x what I thought it would be. Without installation costs, that's $0.095/kWh == $3000 / (7kWh * 5000 cycles * 0.9 efficiency).
Which means that consumer storage is already within your $0.11/kWh price; that's completely astounding to me, and means that on the grid scale it will be even cheaper.... I imagine that the days of peaker plants are coming to a close entirely.
This conversation has made me hugely optimistic. Huge swathes of the country are already primed to go completely off grid, economically, then. If solar costs $0.06/kWh, and half of the energy is stored at $0.10/kWh, that's a total price of $0.11/kWh for an off-grid site. That's far cheaper than what I pay for electricity right now.
Is your $0.11/kWh price just for the stored amount at $200/kWh? That conversion factor to kWh-stored prices is more favorable than I've been using, as I've been assuming about ~1000 cycles worth of storage, but then I don't really have a good number for that.
Since not all energy will need to be stored, and much (most?) can be used right away, then it will increase the overall cost of energy only by the X% that needs to be stored. So if solar is $0.05/kWh, and 50% can be used right away, then the overall cost for solar + storage would be $0.105/kWh on the generation side. Which is quite competitive already.
http://insideevs.com/lg-chem-ticked-gm-disclosing-145kwh-bat...