Talk:Tesla Powerwall

Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Energy Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

There's been some confusion over the current and power figures. The current figures are from the original design. But the power figures are from the new upgraded design. Since Power = Voltage * Current, we can not mix them. We either use the figures from the new design only or we list figures for both designs separates (as I did).

Pmsyyz says that none of the original design were sold but lower down it says Solar City has been selling them. Which is it, were they sold or not sold?  Stepho  talk  12:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Powerwall started shipping in September 2015: [1] --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains, has Solar City been selling these systems too? Or has Solar City only been saying that it will sell them and that it is only now starting to sell them?  Stepho  talk  02:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/13/8033691/why-teslas-battery-for-your-home-should-terrify-utilities (13 Feb 2015) "Indeed, SolarCity has already begun installing Tesla batteries, mostly on commercial buildings like Walmart stores". This tells me that the original, lower power system has been installed in at least some premises, possibly under a trial project. Tesla's website still lists the low power figures, so it's not clear if systems being installed now are still low power or are the newer high power design. Since both low and high power systems have been installed (or will be installed in the near future), it makes more sense to list the specs of both. Possibly we could name them better (eg 'trial release' instead of 'original').  Stepho  talk  03:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No answer after 2 weeks, so I think I will add the twin specs back in tomorrow.  Stepho  talk  05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is about a range of batteries, I suggest we renamed it to Tesla Energy. [2] --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a specific battery series manufactured by Tesla Motors - Not about Tesla Energy in general.--TMCk (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section should mention that Tesla batteries use lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese, which means China, the world's largest sourcer essentially mines itself into moonscape and villages are being razed by the military to make place for digging. Women deliver deformed babies and children fall sick from poisoning due to all the refuse dumped in the countryside, with the concept of environmental protection essentially being non-existent there.

Each Tesla e-car hauls about 1900lbs of batteries under the floor-plate and manufacturing each battery needs 500x times its own weight as raw materials to start the process. Thus, massive demand artificially generated to consume the excessive production capacity of "Teslasonic" Gigafactories means the lands of China will be devoured faster and faster. Those lands become poisoned with metals and cannot ever be used for agriculture to feed China's 1.3+ billion people.

In contrast, while fuel cells are monetarily expensive, they require only ~3 coin's worth of platinum metal as catalyst, in addition to traditional industrial raw materials (mostly steel, which only needs trace amounts of e.g. nickel, chrome, manganese to become stainless). The environmental impact of fuel cells is much less than that of chemical batteries. 79.120.162.187 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please find sources to back those claims, otherwise they're just opinions. Is there evidence that Tesla's suppliers contribute to the problem? TGCP (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the lifespan of a system like this? A cycle life is given, but my understanding is that these technologies degrade in efficiency over time and eventually fail. Is this years? Months? Decades? 60.240.207.146 (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a section title for this, since it was under the Chinese criticism. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

60.240.207.146—I would imagine:

1) that Tesla has not published such a specification yet, since they cannot have finished development and done full accelerated life cycle testing on a number of manufactured units for them to form an engineering judgement.

2) However, it is highly likely that they have good engineering data on the battery cells, and how long they last in other apllications than Powerwall, so the problem is somewhat characterized. Moreover, they are likely to want a product spec of a lifetime in years, say 5 or 8, with only some specified percentage degradation over time. (BTW, rooftop solar systems that are leased, such as by Solar City, are often done this way: "20 year lifetime" with some specified (by year) percentage degradation expected, so that, say, in year 20, only 82.5% of the system power capacity might be expected compared to 100% in year 1. I don't know that TeslaEnergy will do this; just showing how it might be done for long-lived products that degrade over time, as batts definitely do.) Also, their Tesla Model S battery data will greatly inform them on the general direction of the technology with respect to lifetimes.

Either way, this is Wikipedia. So verifiable reliable sources are needed to make a statement in the article. If you find such a source with real test data, add it, as WP:ANYONECANEDIT anyone can edit Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the table specify 2.4.5 A? should it be 2.45 A or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.183.164 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpack should be split off into a separate article, since it's supposed to be about grid-level storage, and not retail consumer level storage. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same essential technology, just with bigger. I'd leave them together.  Stepho  talk  08:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be rather just a different way of packaging the batteries, and perhaps aimed at a different market segment. Still, the prose in the article could be improved to better clarify the two different terms/nomenclature for the two somewhat different product lines. N2e (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a separate product, just as a Tesla Model S has the same basic technology as a Tesla Model X; or a single-core Delta IV is the same as the tripe core Delta IV Heavy. Or Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OtherStuffExists - just because other articles are made that way, does not mean we should do the same here. The two products share a lot of similarities to also share article. If the article grows large, we may consider WP:Splitting it. Different cell chemistry would be to small a reason, so far. I agree that market may be a reason to split at some point, but not now. TGCP (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be renamed if it is to cover mains power units and not just the Powerwall, since it doesn't represent the topics covered, it represents only part of the the topics covered. Tesla site storage battery products or somesuch descriptive title, since it covers multiple products. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for a rename or split; Powerpack is a much bigger business than Powerwall, but the Powerpack is poorly represented in this article. Greg (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit confusing as there are references to $/kWh and Wh/$ mixedly. Even in a single sentence. 99% of people are used to prices being quoted in $/kwh so that's what should be used imho.Darin-0 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]