Elon Musk Sees Tesla’s Batteries Providing Energy Storage for all SolarCity Installations within 10 Years

We often discuss the future of home energy production in terms of what LENR could make possible, but it’s likely that it will be some time before home LENR systems become available. Meanwhile an increasing number of homeowners are looking to cut energy costs and increase energy independence by installing rooftop solar panels on their homes.

An interesting development is being reported by the Wall Street Journal which involves Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla motors, and also chairman of SolarCity, one of the leading companies working in the domestic solar energy industry. At a conference in New York on Wednesday, Musk appeared with his cousin, Lyndon Rive, (who is the CEO of SolarCity) where they discussed a future collaboration between Tesla and SolarCity in which some of the batteries produced at Tesla’s gigafactory in Nevada will be used for “grid scale storage”.

Energy storage is seen as a crucial partner to solar and wind energy because of the intermittent nature of these renewable energy sources. If you can cheaply store energy produced by solar cells on your home, it could be a very attractive way to move off the grid.

From the Wall Street Journal article:

Thanks to the economies of scale that will come from Tesla’s gigafactory, within 10 years every solar system that SolarCity sells will come with a battery-storage system, says Mr. Rive, and it will still produce energy cheaper than what is available from the local utility company.

Mr. Musk also noted that in any future in which a country switches fully to electric cars, its electricity consumption will roughly double. That could either mean more utilities, and more transmission lines, or a rollout of solar—exactly the sort that SolarCity hopes for.

Elon Musk has proven to be force to be reckoned with in bringing advanced technology to market in new and visionary ways, and it will be interesting to see how this partnership with SolarCity develops. One wonders, of course, what Elon Musk might do in connection with LENR if it is proven to be revolutionary and viable way to produce energy. Electric cars could be a natural fit if LENR electrical production becomes a reality.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    let us sacrifice a boar and share a good barbecue for peace

    http://idata.over-blog.com/2/29/56/51//banquet_asterix.jpg

  • Andreas Moraitis

    But the degree of consensus depends on the epistemological preconditions. The better the methods for testing existing hypotheses, the more hypotheses can be ruled out. If you cannot rule out them reliably, they will continue to coexist. Thus, there will be fewer consensuses between the researchers.

    • bachcole

      I see. But you are assuming that the koolaid drinkers know this. It also assumes that the 97% figure is true, but I have seen discussions where that number is torn apart.

  • Bernie777
    • bachcole

      You are just repeating stuff that everyone in the modern world has already read.

      (1) The disagreement is not about climate change. The climate changes constantly.

      (2) I disbelieve the 97% figure.

      (3) Even if I believed the 97% figure, believing authority figures is religion, not science.

      (4) The science that I have seen convinces me that human CO2 emissions has a very small impact on the environment. Here is an excellent rendition of why I disbelieve AGW: http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf I first so most of his information elsewhere, but he did an excellent job putting it all together.

      (5) Pollution sucks. I look forward with extremely keen anticipation to the E-Cat greatly reducing all forms of pollution. The only reason that you and I and anyone else at e-catworld.com continue this pointless debate about AGW is for ego reasons.

      (6) You did not address my point that disbelieving LENR is better supported by mainstream science than is believing AGW. 99.9% of all physicists disbelieve in LENR, while a measly supposedly 97% of all “climate” scientists support AGW.

      • Bernie777

        I have addressed your point comparing LENR and man made climate change. Let me put it another way: On a scale of one to ten, of the entire “scientist” community, those who are aware of LENR is a ONE, mainly because most “scientists” get their information via peer reviewed articles, and there have been zero on LENR. Those “scientists” who are aware of man made climate change is a TEN, mainly because there have been numerous peer reviewed articles about man made climate change. Therefore, you are comparing apples and oranges. There is just no basis for comparing the two unrelated subjects. I am not sure why you want to compare them.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          there are many peer reviewed article on LENR, some but few recent. (takahashi on iwamura process…).
          the only but pathologically real problem is that in both case only high impact journal are counted and they have an editorial policy about what is the truth to propagate.
          They behave like some french press, french national TV, BBC, who are conscious that they are opinion leader and think that they have to prevent bad information like cold fusion to spread in the public.

          the common point on AGW and LENR is :
          – importance of leading high impact scientific journal in organizing a peer review blocking, which is documented in both cases.
          – importance of leading media like BBC, national TV, NyT, Libération in passively or actively blocking dissenting voice judged as anti-science and unethical.
          – importance on Internet as free speech media
          – presence of internet watchdog defending consensus
          – blocking of free speech in scientific forum in France.
          – both dissenters are opposing the dominant Malthusian/green memeplex, and the big science, big state, big academic memeplex (it seem both memeplex have merged).
          – both dissenting position propose a better world for emerging countries and populations, than the “need to work hard” consensus.
          – there is huge vested interest for AGW (renewables, nuke) and no-LENR (hot fusion physics)
          – AGW and LENR are based on streetlight modelisation… modeling what we know, ignoring what we cannot modelize.
          – in both case the models are clearly challenged by evidence… the pause on AGW, by tritium/heant/he4/transmutations for LENR.

          the difference is that
          – AGW is a positive consensus (it exist), LENr is a negative consensus (it does not exist)
          – dissenters push mostly “absence of evidence” for AGW, and “solid evidence” for LENR
          – AGW is very hard to refute./prove as it is 100years window for low quality highly corrected evidences. LENR is just clearly proven by mass of lab evidence and can be with industrial tea kettle. Most AGW claimes are nearly impossible to prove in an undeniable way as, temperature ate 60-100% of warming corrected, catastrophes are impossible to detect before a century.
          -AGW is politically polarised, and there is massive political investment in US on both side, even if there is huge asymmetry elsewhere, while LENR is only fought by academic and skeptic societies. AGW dissenters are supported by anti-statist politicians, and LENr is defended by “fan club” and individual labs or scientists.
          – Oil companies are cooked by AGW consensus, and cooked by LENR dissensus.

          • Bernie777

            After all of that, the fact still remains that “scientists” get their information from peer reviewed “high impact journals”.

            • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

              that is the problem.
              not better than couch potatoes who get their news from TV or Excec from NyT/WSJ.

              variety of sources, or direct source is a requirement to have real information, but it is too expensive.

              people who have data from mainstream sources only should not debate. they can trust their source better than fringe sources, but should not use their numbers to get prevalence above those who have real direct sources.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Roger, you are comparing apples and oranges. The preconditions of research in climatology and condensed matter physics are totally different. Physicists can test their hypotheses by experiments, not only by computer simulations, climatologists cannot. They are operating necessarily on a much more uncertain ground.

  • Bernie777

    bachcole, you said, “there is a higher percentage of them (scientists) that cold fusion is bunk than there are that AGW is true.” That is just a crazy statement, 95% of “scientists” have not debunked LENR, because they have not done experiments on LENR and have not read any peer reviewed articles on LENR, because there are none, to gain knowledge to have a negitive opinion. Every “scientist” I have talked to has reacted like “I am open to it, show me the proof”.

  • Bernie777

    bachcole: To answer your question: Your comparison of climate change scientists and scientists
    that do not accept or do not know about LENR is what I call Fox News logic. There is no comparison, like comparing apples and pickles. Lets take 1000 scientists, 5% have done the LENR experiments and are getting excess energy. 95% of the 1000 scientists have not done the
    experiment and are waiting on peer reviewed confirmation. Climate change: 95% of the 1000 scientists have done extensive research for two decades that says man made climate change is real, and has been reported in 100’s of peer reviewed articles.

    Here is a hilarious clip:
    You can go to 2:90 of the clip after ad.

    http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed

    • Omega Z

      Interesting Scenario.
      Do you realize that if you flip flop the scenario, It works just as good & just as accurately.

      • Bernie777

        No it does not.

    • bachcole

      The scientific case and consensus for NO cold fusion is MUCH better than the scientific case and consensus for AGW. Trying to castigate me by implying that I look at Fox News or that my thinking is like Fox News does not count; it just makes you look incapable of presently a good and reasoned argument.

      • Bernie777

        Is that the best retort you can come up with?

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Yes, I believe they have a $73,000 model.

    The fact that they have a $113,000 model that will with their
    new revolutionary battery plant now cost $100,000, or they have a model that
    was $73,000 that will now cost $70,000 is STILL a MOOT point. The simple fact
    is these are high priced luxury cars in a NICHE market.

    The BASIC point and knowledge I have imparted here is not
    changed by their lower cost product. The simple matter is some 30% cost reduction in their batteries DOES NOT in any signification way change the cost structure of their cars.

    And worse is those in “many” areas with HIGH priced electricity,
    those without suitable homes (or parking stations), and those in colder areas
    cannot practical take advantage of such vehicles. And toss in the very high
    cost of these cars, then indeed such a choice is really only for those that
    hardly care about the cost of their vehicles they purchase.

    As noted while the above is solid reasoning, at the end
    of the day I still think the Telsa is a great product as along as one realizes
    its target market and limited usability for average vehicle owners..

  • Broncobet

    Bravo.

  • Broncobet

    If the CF reactors were free it doesn’t mean the price to the public will be low, in any case profit will be maximized.

  • Broncobet

    Check out the nuclear battery that goes thirty years without a charge.

  • Bernie777

    Just look at the list of the number of scientists that approved the climate report, you are saying all of these women/men are corrupt, nonsense. As laymen, do you agree it is best to mitigate the threat, rather than taking the chance of you being wrong and passing a huge, much more difficult to solve problem in 50-100 years to our grandchildren?

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    people, consensus can have good and bad position for bad or (rarely) good reasons.

    See Steeve koonin who buried cold fusion, and is abandoning AGW consensus recently. in both case it seems that even if he values consensus, he is demanding quite strong evidence…

    for LENR he simply refused chemistry evidence, observing bad physics evidences and bad theory.

    for AGW after tolerating lack of evidence for decades he finally consider it is too much.

    what you can consider, but this prove nothings else the absence of proofs, are the violation of scientific method.

    climategate, like Caltec/MIT/Harwell article in Nature/Science and Oriani, Caltech critics or Deninno rejection, show clear evidence of pathological peer review, where bad article are passing review because they are produced by influential authors and following the consensus, and where good article or critics are rejected.

    you also see with hockey stick, tricky graphics, and MIT corrections clear tolerance to fraud when it is mainstream.

    you can see with BBCgate, or generic bias against cold fusion, the way media organize a blocking of dangerous non consensual science, while they tolerate bad p*rn science every day in their news.

    so you know those consensus are void?

    nor all consensus are void!

    nor all bad consensus are wrong…

    you simply know nothing.

    since it is very hard to analyse sincerely evidences you can even be convinced that there is good evidence which are in fact voodoo science…

    or see that some evidences are not convincing while they are solid…

    most people who say LENR evidence are broke , even the very few who read them, are sincere…

    about AGW I have my opinion.

    I know LENR solve the problem, so it is useless to discuss.

    I know there is strong polarization (which helped the debate to be visible), pathetic bad arguments by fans of both sides… everybody with a brain can see that pro-statism and anti-statism are fighting on that question with the dream of some to tax the air, while other want to sell auction on it.

    When I see only the serious discussion I see much more convergence, and still many divergence.

    the worst difference is not the science it self, but two approach:

    – one is the approach about uncertainty, and Judith Curry ste the debate well… the power of model, the null hypothesis, unknown unknown

    – the other is about the answer tro the problem, whether possibilites->no regret solution against prediction->action… prevention or mitigation…

    the good point is that the question is not important as it is solved.

    the bad point is that all the epistemology and policy question stay open.

  • Omega Z

    I think what you mean is if he would get it to market so that we can heat a cup of water. I’ll add to that. So we can heat 10 cups for the cost of 1, Because there is no doubt it gets hot enough to heat water.

  • Omega Z

    Your right,
    Musk actually has a good track record. Especially when personally involved in his own projects. However, I think he hedges his bets. As in, His personal deadline for getting something done may be sooner then official deadlines.
    I learned long ago, It’s better to have a client say he had it done 2 days early rather then 2 days latter then promised.

    My point was certain people tend to have things in common, Like Rossi saying, “The stone age didn’t end because they ran out of stone.” Elon has his sayings of a similar manor. They are also of a Driven nature. We need more people like this.

  • Bernie777

    I answered this question when, I think it was georgehants, asked the same question, if you missed it I will try to find it for you.

  • Bernie777

    Nonsense, they are not denied funding or get funding based on their opinion about climate change, you remind me of the Chairman of the Republican led House SCIENCE Committee, “we won’t have any sea level change because ice melting in water does not increase its volume.”

    • Broncobet

      Well he’s party right that ice in the water melting doesn’t raise the water much but you are right Bernie, because melted sea ice means dark water that absorbs more heat, and cubic miles of land ice on places like Greenland melt each year and change is accelerating .

  • Christopher Calder

    My prediction is that Tesla motors will be out of business within 5 years. He is selling products that no one really needs, and at a very high price. When batteries/capacitors become really usable and affordable for electric cars, the big automakers will sell the most electric cars and Tesla will be a fad boutique company that came and went.

    • bachcole

      Probably. Tesla/Musk just doesn’t have the muscle that GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. has.

      • Broncobet

        Tomorrow he could own GM.

    • Bernie777

      They said that five years ago, his motor company now has a market cap of 33 Billion Dollars, and they are standing in line for delivery.

    • Omega Z

      Probably not bankrupt…
      A Big Player- Not likely, but still a player.
      Likely a small company selling maybe 200K plus cars a year in addition to selling drive train parts to his competitors. Yes, they already do that. In addition, they’ll by his batteries.

      Even the Big players sell certain models in the low numbers.

    • Heath

      Perhaps you should look at their business plan or watch a fw of his more recent interviews. They are looking to release a ~$30,000 car in the next few years to grab more market share. Look at what Musk and SpaceX did for rocket technology in just a few years and image what Tesla will do with battery innovation with the Gigafactory. I believe they have a bright future.

  • GreenWin

    Roger, they are the same unit, i.e. the British Pound Sterling. So, assume 5£ per US gallon would be $8.17. The electric would be $0.29/kWh. In the USA this translates to a per annum savings of about $1250.00 for the Nissan Leaf EV. According to owner records: http://drivingelectric.blogspot.com/2014/01/five-months-in-our-2013-nissan-leaf-and.html

  • Bernie777

    Right, too beautiful is usually a big problem. (:

  • Bernie777

    bachcole……You are getting away with a lot of mocking. You are wrong as usual, I changed my post because I did not want it to sound like a personal attack, unlike some recent posts.

  • Fortyniner

    I have to agree. There is still no sign that the gap between hype and reality has closed significantly, and Mills may well burn his way though the next tranche of investment without significant practical results, just as he’s done before.

  • Fortyniner

    I take your point about Rossi’s encounter, but this may only reflect a certain degree of unawareness on the part of vested interests at the time. The nuclear battery and any similar devices are covered by legislation relating to fissile materials, and are therefore already entirely in the corporate province – as CF is likely to be in due course.

  • georgehants

    Roger if your reply had not been so silly I would have been happy to have spent time discussing with you.

  • Len Fusioneer

    So, What If:

    – one of the many new battery technologies has already proven to be appropriate to those in the know, like Elon? (my favourite for the last few years is the sugar battery by a Utah(!!!) Professor)

    – he wanted to hide the development of a novel new battery until it was ready for installation in a proven application?

    – he, who has blown the word away with his car tech, and stated that the charging of the cars will be free, expects to ramp up production/sales beyond what he can do with his charging stations?

    – Mats Lewan and/or AR didn’t want to spill the beans, so made only passing mention of AR and EM contact?

    – EM knows much more about CF than he mentions in his interviews? (I wonder how much he cringed when his wife mentioned his interest in CF)

    – this clearly talented, resourceful out-of-the-box thinkng entrepreneur needed to produce batteries but the world couldn’t supply them anywhere near as quickly as he wanted?

    – he wanted to sell his cars with the capability of charging themselves?

    Wouldn’t it make some sense to build a large manufacturing facility, say, out in the desert somewhere, to produce power systems for sale?
    Both to Tesla and other consumers of such integrated packages?

    Ya, and say it’s for Li-on batteries because that’s the current technology and what everyone expects.

    Oh, and cover the roof with solar panels because that’s also expected, and he can probably find an affordable source…

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    I’m much more boring .not yet any contact with DGSE

    It tooks me 20 years, Internet bubble from inside, Financial bubble from inside, climate bubble from beside, LENR by accident, to understand that conspiracy theory are sometime mainstream, and that other conspiracy theories are just there to hide the reality.

    UFO are there to protect US citizen mind from criticizing violation of their ethic by their government…

    MH370, MH17, LENR, Climate, the things are simple…

    we simply have difficulties to understand the absurd logic of groupthink…

    MH17… shot down by those who were there with fighters, because not even 10 drunken operator can shot down a civilian plane which is tagged as civilian by IFF transponder… assuming pilote error under low oxygen is more rational. fakes on twitter and audio is pathetic. assuming the only one who don’t have any missile nor any plane is guilty, while neonazi driven party with 10 missiles and 2 fighter are assumed innocent… remind me the MIT fraud… Conspiracy with plastinated corps is just to make the real theory look fantazy.

    MH370… sure hijacked, and shot down above diego garcia… trajectory is logic, and sure if the plane was in the around as witness seen, it was seen by the electronic big ears of diego garcia… behavior to send research far from the logical zone is pathetic. Conspiracy with secret planes kept in DG is just to make the real theory look fantazy.

    hot fusion : a good idea that does not work finally but makes bigger budget, long tenure, big publication index, big business. budget and failure despite known hopeless challenge, while ignoring aneutronic and small solution is pathetic.

    Climate : a good idea that does not work finally but make bigger budget, long tenure, big publication index, big business, big ideology, big religion, big politics. Even Koonin is leaving the boat now http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565 (time for me to consider climate theory if Koonin challenge it ;-> )

    use Occam razor, not consensus.

    my new amateur job make me understand how information travel the community network… some information are protected to spread, and others spread like virus because some intrinsic properties, and by media support…

    see how Blacklight and NASA Zawodny articles spread more than E-cat stories… I’ve seen it…
    see how EmDrive is allowed to spread by journalist, much more than cold fusion.

    see how facts (not theory) on MH17 don’t spread… at least in France.

    groupthink is only one structure of information propagation.

    rumor follow other ways… press works another way (sheep, and ideology bias). CIA is today quite good at legally spreading counter fires to media, helped by mainstream parrots and social puppets.

    today in france I see how politicians, helped by puppet journalists, can spread counter scandal to react to an affair… that is a job.

    no conspiracy, all is public. reality is simplest.

    • Fortyniner

      I’ve been sitting here in my conservatory for the last hour and a half, watching a clear blue morning sky being turned into a hazy grey mess by jets flying in parallel to known flight paths across to Wales, and others (white painted refuelling tankers, no markings – I keep a telescope handy) flying at 90 degrees to this this where there are no flight paths, both leaving trails that persist and spread out across the sky for hours.

      This is in plain sight, but unnoticed by 95% of the sheeple and rationalised away as ‘normal’ by most of the remainder, who are simply unable to conceive that something so huge could be happening without public information or engagement.

      There are thousands of hours of movies online, millions of photos, and hundreds of analyses of rainfall following spraying, that together prove beyond any shadow of doubt that harmful chemicals are being routinely dispensed into the atmosphere for whatever reason or reasons. But if anyone confronts the average citizen with the facts, most just think ‘conspiracy theory’ and dismiss the facts, just as they have been trained to respond.

      In the end, most people can’t handle cognitive dissonance, breaking free of groupthink, or additional stress, and instead simply choose to believe that all is well — leaving the perpetrators free to continue with whatever it is they are attempting to accomplish. So it is for all the ‘big lies’ – AGW, weather wars, Fukushima cover up, false flag events, manufactured wars, planetary financial manipulation, real and imaginary pandemics, and the rest of constructed ‘reality’.