alt Hacker NewsI really wonder if part of the reason this isn’t more widespread is that utilities with variable rate electricity pricing would get burnt on it. Imagine charging during cheap time then dumping 5-20kWh back onto the grid during expensive time. You could have a positive ROI on a vehicle you regularly drive (timing permitting)
Replies
Why? That's the entire point of moving towards dynamic tariffs. In the systems I'm familiar with the utility company makes money through a fee charged on top of the market purchase/sale price, much like an investment broker.
Maybe. I did the math and in our area a Powerwall would roughly pay for itself over the speced lifespan of the device, IIRC that was just the cost of the device not the cost of installation. I did that calculation ~4 years ago, so maybe it has changed, but definitely do the math, I was surprised.
Why shouldn't utilities pay for this? You're provide grid load balancing. Theoretically their pricing should be considering this? It's not actually free to you since charging and discharging your battery costs money.
But naturally the situation is they want to be the ones paid the big bucks for such services.
No, the main barrier is concern over warranties for the vehicles.
In California, the law requires that vehicles still hold up to 70% of their original charge after 8 years and 75% in the future [1]:
> and d., to deteriorate to less than 70% for a warranty period of eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs, for 2026 through 2030 model years, and 75% for a warranty period of eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs, for 2031 and subsequent model years.
The law is unclear on bidirectional charging and whether this would give manufacturers an out. So they're cautious.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/13-CCR-19...