fail. it’s a mobile battery, not a generator. For a modest extra few $1000s it can be grid-tied and used as a battery backup.
I predict grid-tying will not look like a virtue when the public utility decides to tap into the owner’s battery to make up for generation malinvestment...
It sure looks like a virtue when the public utility already taps into grid-tied rooftop PV arrays, generating income for homeowners and cleaning up the grid.
If adding energy storage to homes allows the grid to require less fossil-fuel burning peaker plants, while generating income for those homeowners, why wouldn't this be rightfully seen as a virtue?
My main concern is that the compensation be appropriate for the added wear and tear on the grid-tied EV batteries. Assuming this is addressed, it seems like a good thing.
Hmm, imagine the scenario where the truck owner inconveniently runs out of battery charge on the highway because the utility depleted it in favor of increasing generation. While all of your scenarios may seem virtuous to you, it’s not necessarily incorporating the perspective of the person who actually paid $1000s for the privilege of being left on the side of the road…
To me it feels like a bummer. Not to you?
A lot of Americans have multiple vehicles, it's those I expect to most exploit this option. Driving a giant pickup truck for all your needs isn't particularly pleasant, it's kind of an ideal vehicle to leave grid-tied most the time until you need to haul something big/heavy/filthy.
Please help me to recontextualize such an inane counter. It’s like you have no response at all and just reframe things so you’ll have something to refute.
That’s dishearteningly dishonest for HN.
> Please help me to recontextualize such an inane counter. It’s like you have no response at all and just reframe things so you’ll have something to refute.
>
> That’s dishearteningly dishonest for HN.
Recently, I declined purchasing a solar system for my home, because it would not provide energy independence when the grid is down as I had envisioned. Instead, it required a device from the power company which would "allow" me to use my own energy storage, but also give them full access to the same resources. I saw this for the obvious scam it was - power companies sharing the burden of costly infrastructure with consumers through clever marketing and federal tax "discounts". It's not a stretch of imagination to apply this logic to other independent energy mechanisms like gasoline engine cars and imagine the implications on our autonomy.
And that it’s carbon free because in theory it could be charged by purely renewables, especially likely if you have personal solar, vs a real generator which is only burning fuel.
The article is being clever and recontextualising the concept, because that’s what cements a use case in peoples minds.
Awesome! Gotta remember that line when I make shit up! Hurrah for This brave new world where a sufficiently recontextualised concept reveals a whole new consensually derived factual basis for persuasion.
Then limit or block exporting out to the grid.