Hacker News Reader

Comment by tlb | Hacker News Reader

$3500 doesn't include the inverter or transfer switch. Transfer switch is maybe $200, and it's not clear what the inverter might cost. It's a nontrivial part, since it would be responsible for daily cycle estimation and cost optimization.

For $3300 you can get a 17 kW generator with inverter and transfer switch [0], which will run for days on a house-sized propane tank. At my house in the woods, we do sometimes get multi-day power outages after storms. Though, to be fair, you need a concrete pad and 30 square feet to install the generator.

It doesn't seem like a competitive backup system, but load shifting is still appealing.

[0] http://www.costco.com/Honeywell-17-kW-Automatic-Standby-Gene...

View on HN

Some people (like me) are simply unwilling to keep using carbon-based sources of energy. At some point it just feels awful to be contributing to such a terrible problem. I'm counting the days till I can sell my worn out petrol car and get an electric car. If I had a home and dollars, I'd want one of these batteries.

Batteries are not clean; lithium mines are one ugly slight and recycling is difficult: http://whenonearth.net/awe-inspiring-aerial-images-worlds-me...

In my clueless opinion these batteries should be used strategically in places where solar, wind, and hydro power are unavailable.

Yes the real breakthrough tech needed is a new battery! Which hopefully Tesla is on track to develop,because as is, electric cars are just not scalable.

People say that, but from what I've heard there is plenty of lithium in the world to increase use 20% every year for 30 years before we need to get more creative in how we mine it. That's a huge total increase and means that electric cars totally are scalable.

Do you have information supporting the idea that electric cars aren't scalable? My understanding is that they definitely are scalable.

Charging is where the scaling problems come in. If everybody in your neighborhood plugs in their Tesla at their home at night and/or at their office during the day, it will likely cause brownouts and blackouts in areas with grid service that's already marginal for current demand. Hence Musks's interest in load-shifting technology.

Utilities have existing techniques for distributing that load. They already work with smelters and other large power users to coordinate their power demands.

In some places utilities are offering discounted electricity prices if the car charging infrastructure is hooked up to their smart metering/control system. This allows the company to signal when cars should start/stop charging.

There's no reason they can't work with car makers to introduce two way signalling between the charging infrastructure and the grid - the car can tell the grid that it needs to use X kW by Y time, and the grid can communicate the current permitted load.

Potentially with some option for the customer to pay a premium to charge immediately at a higher rate.

You're assuming a world where 80% of the people already have an EV. You don't think most of those people will also have solar panels and battery backups at home (from which to charge the car at night).

it isn't so much how many people charging, its the ability of people to charge where they live and the lack of ability to truly quick charge the battery.

As in, damn the kids left the car unplugged and I have to work. even thirty minutes at a super charger is not a good solution.

So it comes down to a compromise, a good range extender technology and batteries for the majority of driving. That until truly faster charging can be achieved with house hold wiring.

> As in, damn the kids left the car unplugged and I have to work. even thirty minutes at a super charger is not a good solution.

I don't see this as something to worry about - it's just a household habit problem. Pretty much every new device introduces some, and people quickly adapt to use the device properly.

The argument is silly. The kids could also forget (or just not bother) to put gas in the car and leave it on empty. Yet strangely we manage to make do with gas-powered cars.

Solar power, local wind turbines, , etc. We need to get off the grid and start working on isolated energy systems.

There is definitely enough lithium in the world to increase the production of lithium-ion EVs. From how I understand it it though, it is unlikely that lithium-ion EV could replace every car currently running in the world. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/

Whether or not batteries are "clean" seems to be a matter of opinion. My understanding is that lithium mines aren't inherently unclean, but many current lithium mines are unclean. The idea is that it is good to support bad tech, since public pressure could ensure it is clean. That's unlike fossil fuels, which can never be clean. All that is just hearsay though, I can't confirm its accuracy.

Still, some might say that carbon pollution and groundwater pollution are different problems. One may decide the trade off between one and the other is worthwhile.

> Batteries are not clean; lithium mines are one ugly slight and recycling is difficult:

You are conflating two senses of "clean" that are radically different in meaning and importance.

-- Fossil fuels are !clean in that they may destroy all life on earth via catastrophic climate change.

-- Lithium mines are !clean in that they present waste disposal challenges and some people find them "ugly".

It's like saying "your non–blood diamond is still a blood diamond because the jeweler got a papercut while handling the documentation".

I feel like a backup generator is the last place where I would make my decisions based on the environment. I mean how long is it actually going to be active? Also batteries aren't exactly environment friendly either.

That may well be how you feel, but lately I feel like any burning of petrol is just disgusting (though I still do it as I cannot afford alternatives at the moment). I want to completely divest from fossil fuels, even for intermittent use. That's as much for the social value of saying "yeah I don't use fossil fuels and it's great" as it is for the environmental impact. I want to try all this tech to be an early adopter and help people prove it out to the rest of the world.

Your comments vex me. I don't mean for this to be an attack, but clearly you ARE willing, so why would you say you aren't? We all want to do more.

Isn't that a bit of an overreaction?

You might want to reevaluate any moral position you have where a significant basis of your values is the ability to brag about them. I would be fairly disgusted if someone said a significant amount of the reason they're so devout in their religion was so they could boast about it with their peers.

I didn't read the GP comment as "bragging" so much as wanting to be an existence proof that it's possible to live a modern life without (directly) burning any dinosaurs.

This. I want to be an early tester so I can relate to others the value of the tech.

That's ridiculous.... the only way to actually achieve that is to abstain from all plastic consumption, and abstain from all electricity consumption.

> that may well be how you feel, but lately I feel like any burning of petrol is just disgusting (though I still do it as I cannot afford alternatives at the moment).

LOL. that's some serious self-delusion. some of the best i've ever seen in the wild.

the alternative to fossil fuels is free -- just don't use them. your feet are free. bikes are almost free and subsidized in many cities.

the reason you use it is not because you "can't afford the alternative" but because you find the convenience and utility quite high, i.e. WORTH THE COST, compared to walking your ass around town and going cold in the winter, just like everyone else.

fundamentally this is a problem of economics, not of really really really wanting to do the right thing.

How do you think every data center in the world is backed up for power? Diesel generators. You'd have to quit using the internet until a different power backup method is adopted.

> Also batteries aren't exactly environment friendly either.

Kind of a straw man argument. They are still far more environmentally friendly than gas or coal.

If you're talking about cost/benefit that's a reasonable calculation to make.

If you're talking about being "disgusted" and wanting to completely avoid polluting at any cost, not so much. Sacred values and all that.

Fumes from backup generators are problematic without the environmental considerations: they're seldom-run and often minimally maintained, and there are exhaust-gas fatalities most winters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com