Tesla Energy

It's not a storage issue or a production issue

 When, in April 2015, Elon Musk introduced Tesla Energy to the world, the initial buzz was all about how this new energy production and storage device would lower energy costs and turn alternative energy (solar powered Lithim Ion battery packs) would become a real option for many homes.

Critics went off almost before the press conference was over.

Some pointed out that it was not about energy production; that the cost of production would not go down. Others argued that it was not about energy storage; that the cost of storage would not drop, and its efficiency would not be improved. And then the defenders had their say.

They highlighted the fact that for many, this would be a great energy and cost saving device. The Tesla home battery would provide storage at a rate of about 2 cents per Kw/H compared to the 7 - 9 cents per Kw/H currently available on the market.

Even some critics were quick to point out that although it would in fact add costs to those who already have certain solar power rooftop panels installed, it would be economically better for those who have no alternative energy system in place.

And then the geolocation debate ensued. The argument was made by many that getting off the grid is only preferred in very remote locations, or where power is unreliable, or if you have plenty of money and just want to play around.

Of course, the counterweight to that view is that getting off the grid is not the only use for a Power wall. In fact, having a power wall, or another energy system in place, connected to the grid, allows the homeowner to sell excess energy back to the grid through the local electric company. Therefore, such devices actually help boost overall capacity of the grid, by returning a portion of the solar-powered energy into the overall grid. And by doing so, it also helps drop the cost, or at least helps to not increase it as fast, by providing more supply for the ever-increasing demand.