EV + PV = ROI

SolarCity makes electric cars an even smarter investment 19

SolarCity EV charging stationA Tesla Roadster gets a boost from a SolarCity charging station in SalinasPhoto courtesy SolarCityYou can’t get more California greenin’ than this.

Peter Rive can charge up his Tesla Roadster electric sports car in his San Francisco garage with carbon-free electricity supplied by a solar array on his roof. Then, if he’s in the mood for a road trip, he can drive to Los Angeles, stopping at a solar-powered charging station along the way to top off the battery.

The free charging stations on the “solar highway”—aka the 101—were recently installed by SolarCity, the Silicon Valley rooftop solar company Rive founded with his brother Lyndon. (The electric-blue Roadster sitting in his garage was made by his cousin Elon Musk‘s startup, Tesla Motors.)

So what’s a solar company doing installing highway charging stations for six-figure sports cars driven by people with seven-figure salaries?

In part, it’s a result of SolarCity’s connection to Tesla and grants the electric carmaker received from the state of California to demo charging stations. It makes for great PR, of course, but the bigger picture here is how the emerging electric vehicle industry will drive (sorry) the adoption of residential and commercial photovoltaic systems.

“It’s our feeling that if we really want to make a difference, we have to start changing our infrastructure,” says Lyndon Rive, SolarCity’s chief executive. “Combine EV with PV, and we can really lead a clean lifestyle.” (Jargon watch: That’s “EV” for electric vehicles, and “PV” for photovoltaic solar energy.)

It’s also good for business.

SolarCity earlier this month completed the acquisition of SolSource Energy, a Los Angeles company that installs electric car charging stations in homes and at businesses. So far, SolarCity has installed about 100 charging stations for Tesla customers but expects those numbers to skyrocket once automakers start introducing electric cars to the mass market over the next few years.

“That business does have potential for humongous growth,” says Rive. “We’ve only deployed about 65,000 solar systems in the U.S., but you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of electric cars over the next five years.”

And once you have an EV in your garage, it makes more economic sense to put PV on the roof to supply the electricity. When you’re getting free fuel from the sun for your car, you accelerate return on investment for the solar array. And, of course, you’ll need a bigger solar system, which means bigger profits for installers like SolarCity.

“If you sell 50,000 cars and get 50 percent adoption rate for PV, it’s very significant,” notes Rive. “A lot of customers who have just bought an EV decide to get a solar system as well or vice a versa.”

And when employees start arriving at work expecting to plug in before they log on, companies will have another compelling reason to go solar.

As electric cars go mass market in places like California, PG&E, Southern California Edison and other utilities will likely ramp up efforts to install distributed solar systems to ease the load on the electricity grid and avoid having to build fossil fuel power plants to meet peak demand.

That evolving solar ecosystem can be seen at Peter Rive’s home on a steep San Francisco street with a view of the downtown skyline. On the roof sits a three-kilowatt solar panel array. Although Rive, Solarcity’s chief operating officer, just recently took delivery of his Tesla Roadster, he planned for the car’s electricity consumption when he installed solar panels and upgraded his home’s electrical system a year and a half ago. (Something you, Grist readers, should consider if you are contemplating going solar and may buy an electric car one day.)

“This is the equivalent load of an air conditioner,” says Rive, nodding at his new toy.

The fast-charge station is a square box attached to the wall by the garage. Installation, adds London Rive, “runs between $2,000 and $6,000,” depending on whether an electric system upgrade is needed. The system can charge a depleted battery in about three-and-a-half hours.

“It’s sort of like your cell phone—you use it during the day and plug it in at night and forget about it,” says Rive, taking the heavy-duty cord with a nozzle-like attachment and plugging it into the Roadster’s charge port.

The solar system’s control panel shows that the rooftop panels are generating more electricity at the moment than the house is consuming. “I generate enough solar during the day to offset my commute,” Rive says.

Whether Tesla owners will abandon their private jets or flying first class in favor of driving their Roadsters up and down the California coast is another matter. But the way SolarCity has designed its charging station network points to the future convergence between the roof and the road.

Four of the five fast-charging stations the company built are located at branches of Rabobank, a Dutch-owned bank with 91 branches in California, many of them located along the 101 corridor. The single solar-powered charging station—there are plans to solarize three others—draws its electricity from a 30-kilowatt array previously installed by SolarCity at the bank’s Santa Maria branch on the central coast.

The charging stations currently are only compatible with Tesla’s vehicles, but will eventually add a port to charge other electric cars. (Better Place, Coulomb Technologies and Ecotality are among other startups with plans to electrify the interstate.)

“You don’t want solar to be a stand-alone unit,” says Lyndon Rive. “By the time you stop to use this corridor, it’s been feeding electricity to the grid all day long. But when you plug in your car, it will use less than those panels produced during the day.”

More on the web:

Todd Woody covers green technology and the environment from Berkeley, where he’s a contributing editor at Fortune Magazine and writes his Green Wombat blog. He’s one of the few people on the planet who has seen the rare northern hairy-nosed wombat in the wild.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Eeli Posted 9:22 am
    06 Oct 2009

    The beauty of the plug-in electric is that whether the power generation is alternative energy or coal-fired plants, there is a net reduction in GHG emissions. http://bit.ly/2GSib No down side (except cost, but that was true about the computer also).

    Permalink

  2. Zixingche Posted 9:55 am
    06 Oct 2009

    I don't understand this paragraph:

    "And once you have an EV in your garage, it makes more economic sense to put PV on the roof to supply the electricity. When youre getting free fuel from the sun for your car, you accelerate return on investment for the solar array. And, of course, youll need a bigger solar system, which means bigger profits for installers like SolarCity."

    Aren't most residential solar arrays connected to the grid? So, if you generate more electricity than you consume, don't you get paid for the extra electricity generated? If that's true then the individual's demand for electricity is irrelevant to the economic appeal of the solar array. The real comparison is between the price of oil and the price of electricity with the additional upfront cost of the EV factored in. It also means that even if you consumed zero electricity in your household it could still be a good investment to throw some solar panels on the roof -- it just depends on the price of electricity.

    Permalink

    1. Earl Killian Posted 11:17 am
      06 Oct 2009

      In California, you can drive your electricity bill to zero by installing TOU net-metering and PV, but you cannot get paid for the energy you generate in excess of what you use over a 12 month period. If you want to get paid for electricity generated then you go into a different program where you get wholesale rates instead of retail rates.

      Permalink

      1. Cdrates Posted 3:26 pm
        19 Oct 2009

        California really seems to be on the forefront on alternative fuel technology. I still think that hydrogen cars are going to be the next big thing though.

        Permalink

  3. Zan Dubin Scott Posted 10:44 am
    06 Oct 2009

    Yes, almost all residential solar arrays are grid connected. But you do not get paid for any extra electricity generated. Instead, the excess is credited to your annual bill. If you use less annually than you generate, it goes toward cleaning the grid, but not into your pocket. This is why the US needs a feed-in tariff. And this is why having an EV if you have solar--which can be leased with no upfront cost, as well as purchased outright--does boost ROI. The price of fueling your car with electricity is about 80 cents on the dollar compared to gas. My husband and I have been EV-PV for seven years and knowing that we drive on sunshine, without emitting a skinny stitch of carbon, brings us overwhelming joy. We're not rich. People can do this!

    Permalink

    1. Zixingche Posted 3:24 pm
      06 Oct 2009

      Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense now. I don't see a downside to letting people get paid for the extra electricity they generate with their residential solar panels. Seems like a great way to support solar and it wouldn't cost anyone anything extra. Anyone know why it is structured like this? Especially in California where the supply of electricity often doesn't meet demand.

      Permalink

  4. Zan Dubin Scott Posted 3:40 pm
    06 Oct 2009

    One clarification to my remark: we fuel our EV with electricity for the equivalent of about 80-cents per gallon gas, not 80 cents on the dollar.

    Permalink

  5. Billhook Posted 4:14 pm
    06 Oct 2009

    Can anyone tell me what is the capital cost per tonne of carbon emission avoided by buying both EV & sufficient PV ?

    Then again, given that the fossil fuel is not taken off the market but is left for other buyers to use
    (with Obama having now reneged on the decades-long effort for an agreed global cap on emissions)
    the tonnes of carbon emissions wouldn't actually be avoided, would they ?

    Pretty smooth marketing hype though. No less than one would expect of California's businesses.

    Regards,

    Billhook

    Permalink

  6. BB1978 Posted 7:10 am
    07 Oct 2009

    This is my dream. Unfortunately I'm not a multi millionaire. When this becomes a possibility for average Americans then it will have a real impact. Until then, it's just an interesting story. If every American had a solar array in their home powering their cars AND their home, we would have a real and significant affect on climate change. That can only happen when these systems are competitive with today's current options.

    Permalink

  7. Zan Dubin Scott Posted 9:16 am
    07 Oct 2009

    To BB1978,

    Your dream--our shared dream--is at hand. Homeowners can obtain a solar lease, which in some cases requires no upfront cost, and should cost less per month for clean electricity than what was previously paid for dirty electricity. For renters, many utilities have green programs. A small premium of a few dollars per month goes toward increasing the utility's portfolio of renewable generation from wind and solar. The new electric cars will be more expensive, but so were the first DVDs, cell phones and computers, and the federal govt. has a hefty tax credit in place. States should follow suit. Nothing's real until the cars hit the market, but most think the first sedans should cost $30k to $40k. With wide adoption, prices will drop.

    Permalink

  8. bailsout Posted 2:40 pm
    07 Oct 2009

    Solar City currently has a residential solar lease program that begins as low as $115/mo. My highest electric bill annually is $65. My lowest is $50.
    How does this help me? I know it shouldn't be just about me, but how about a program for those who don't use much, since all the unused juice will still go back to the grid anyway.

    Permalink

  9. BB1978 Posted 7:29 am
    08 Oct 2009

    I live in PA, and no such program of leasing solar cells exists. I wish that a program like that would be available, I would be the first to sighn up. The fact of the matter is, Solarcity is a concept available for people who are very wealthy, this is not a realistic option for average Americans, like myself. If this is where the environmental movement is going, I see very little hope that things will change for the better. The only way we can slow climate change (I happen to beleive we have crossed the tipping point) is to make sustainable options affordable for ordinary, middle class americans. That means a family of four living on $50,000 or less a year who can only afford to shop at places like Wal-mart. When that happens, we will see real change on this issue. Until then, this is just pie in the sky. I am frankly disappointed when I hear the solutions that are presented. Most of them are not are unaffordable, impracticle, or unavailable where I live. I might add, I have made a concious decision to live in a used smaller home (it uses less resources to retrofit a old home vs. building a new one), drive a small vehicle, eat as much organic food as I can afford, eat very little meat or fish, changed all my lightbulbs, recycle everything, plant native plants in my yard, and do not use fertilzers or herbicides. Sadly, this is still not enough to make a real lasting impact. The things that would cut my carbon footprint dramatically to make my lifestyle truly sustainable (solar powered electric system, geothermal, electric car) are simply way out of reach for someone like me. Until that happens, the incremental changes we make in our lifestyles will have minimal impact on warming, which by the way, appears to be accelerating. That is the bottom line, and I hear very little conversation on that issue. Until practicle, affordable solutions are available, all this talk is just that, talk.

    Permalink

  10. wyrick's avatar

    wyrick Posted 11:55 am
    08 Oct 2009

    While I support these efforts and believe they have their place, the article as written is misleading at best. Besides being the domain of the very wealthy, the economics hear gloss over some important basics: capital. Ignoring that, sure it cost pennies to run the car and only comparing those pennies to a gallon of gasoline looks great. The problem is that it required a huge upfront capital commitment. Think of cost premium, finance charges, resource consumption involved in making this happen. Now nearly double that number because of the large subsidies that are underwriting the project.

    We can't keep running the money presses to make it happen. There are many, many far more cost effective and environmentally sound actions that we can take today, with existing technology that does more to address climate change: Efficiency, combined heat and power, mass transit, did I mention efficiency? $20k extra to remove the tailpipe impact of one car seems like a horrible deal to me.

    Permalink

    1. Earl Killian Posted 3:57 pm
      08 Oct 2009

      I remember the first time I heard a CD player in 1984. They had just come out and friend had bought one for around $2000. That was in 1980s dollars, and would be about $4100 today. What do you pay for a CD player today?

      My point is that the price premium for batteries will come down as technology improves and as manufacturing moves down the learning curve. To diss EVs today based on cost is not looking toward what will inevitably happen when they are manufactured in quantity. It is perfectly plausible that in just a few years that an EV battery pack will cost under $8,000, instead of $16,000 today. Subtract from that $8,000 the cost of the engine, radiator, oil pump and filter, spark plugs, transmission, catalytic converter, muffler, and the maintenance associated with those things and all the fluids and filters, and the EV premium will be much less. Remember that maintenance is a big part of the cost of car ownership and that EVs have a lot less of it.

      You should also ask yourself how much you're willing to pay for clean air and water. Plenty of people pay an outrageous price so that the US can feed its gasoline addiction. In contrast, my EV fuel comes from sunshine.

      Permalink

      1. wyrick's avatar

        wyrick Posted 8:48 am
        09 Oct 2009

        In my previous post I should have made couple of points:
        -I take issue with the author's use of EV's as justification (economic or otherwise) for an expensive purchase that is just as much a feather in the hat as an environmentally minded action .
        -Widespread use of EV's is one the best options we have today address energy used in transportation. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much regarding the other ~70% of the energy consumed in the country.

        Permalink

  11. BB1978 Posted 6:18 am
    09 Oct 2009

    Earl, it is not a question of how much I am willing to pay for clean air, water, etc., it is a question of how much I am ABLE to pay for it. Frankly, that kind of talk is exactly why so many people are not engaged in discussions about the environment. If a family makes $50,000 a year, or significantly less, in my mothers case, they may want to eat organic and buy eco friendly clothing, and all the rest of it, they may simply not have the money to do so after they pay for things like housing, energy, transportation, healthcare, and daycare expenses. I agree that this technology will become cheaper in the future, the question is when that future will arrive. We have had solar and wind technologies since the 70's and the cost has not come down to be competitive with conventional energy. (Yes, I am aware that alot of that has to do with the policies we have here in the US.) My point is that we simply do not have the luxury to wait a decade or more for prices to come down to a point where the average Wal-mart shopper can afford to live a sustainable life. We have maybe 5 years tops. So instead of focusing on solutions that only the top 1% can afford, we should be thinking about cheap solutions that everyone can afford. Until that happens, the impact will be marginal, and people will not act. Oh, by the way, clean air and water should be free and provided by government, because that is a basic right of all living things on this planet. There are many in the world that cannot pay anything for such "commodities" without which life on earth would not exist.

    Permalink

    1. Earl Killian Posted 8:05 am
      09 Oct 2009

      You wrote, "We have had solar and wind technologies since the 70's and the cost has not come down to be competitive with conventional energy."

      You seem frozen in time. Wind energy is already competitive with new fossil energy, and it will improve further with the new 5 MW turbines that exploit winds at 80 m and achieve higher capacity factors as a result. Of course, no new energy can compete with fully depreciated old energy, but that's not the test. Consider the busbar cost data prepared for the California Energy Commission by EThree:
      Biogas: 8.552 cents/kWh
      Wind: 8.910 cents/kWh
      Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 cents/kWh
      Geothermal: 10.182 cents/kWh
      Hydroelectric: 10.527 cents/kWh
      Coal Supercritical: 10.554 cents/kWh
      Coal IGCC: 11.481 cents/kWh
      Solar thermal: 12.653 cents/kWh
      Nuclear: 15.316 cents/kWh
      Biomass: 16.485 cents/kWh
      Coal IGCC with CCS: 17.317 cents/kWh
      (Also Stirling Energy Systems claims "less than 10 cents per kWh" for their SunCatcher solar thermal.)

      You wrote, "it is a question of how much I am ABLE to pay for it."

      The question is whether your are ABLE to pay for the cost of not having clean energy. I very much doubt any of us can afford that price tag, at least if we include our children in the equation. You make it sound as if there is a choice, but really the alternative is much too expensive for any of us.

      There is a problem with wind: there are issues with intermittent supply. Fortunately, that is one problem that electric cars help solve.

      Permalink

      1. wyrick's avatar

        wyrick Posted 9:07 am
        09 Oct 2009

        The key word here is "busbar" meaning that it ignores transmission, distribution, and in the case of wind intermittent mitigation technologies. With transmission costs in the $1-$4 million/mile there is significant hurdles to deployment of these mega turbines at remote sites.

        In Texas wind power is ~10% of generating capacity and ~5% of total power generation. On a couple of occasions over the past couple years there have been rolling brownouts that affected mainly industrial customers. As RPS require even more renewables, more problems will arise that will cost money to deal with.

        Permalink

  12. BB1978 Posted 8:31 am
    09 Oct 2009

    Earl, instead of attacking me, perhaps you should re-read ALL my comments so you get what the actual message is. I agree that the cost of doing nothing outweighs the initial upfront cost of investing in renewable energy. HOWEVER, for me personally, I do not have the $60,000+ that it would cost to retrofit my nearly 80 year old home to make it truly sustainable. I also do not have $40,000 to buy the only electric car that is coming out on the market anytime soon: the chevy volt. The Tesla, while very cool, costs more than my house. With all do respect, these are not affordable solutions. You can talk to people until you are blue in the face about future environmental catastrophe, but the average person will stop listening if you offer solutions that are way out of their reach. To suggest that alternative energy is competitive with coal is simply not true. If I ask PECO to switch me to wind power, my bill will more than double. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Can I afford that bill if I have a family of four and make less than $50,000 a year? Probably not. That is the issue here. Until you get Wal-mart shoppers to agree with you, nothing you say will make an impact on climate change. I agree with you in principle, that is why I read the stories on this site, so to convince me is not the hard part. FYI, I already do more to reduce my carbon footprint than the majority of Americans. That may help in the battle, it does not win the war. For me to be able to reduce my carbon footprint to a sustainable level requires a capital investment in my lifestyle over the next 5 years of probably over $100,000 on the cheap end. This is in ADDITION to paying bills that have to be paid things like taxes, insurance, food, heat, etc. Guess what? I don't earn enough to make that happen even if I lived the most frugal lifestyle. I would LOVE to be able to do that, but without massive government subsidies it is not going to happen. Good luck getting something like that passed in congress. So instead of turning off the people who want to be allies, I suggest you listen to our concerns. Critical thinking for any issue applies to all parties. Finally, green products and the companies that produce them, have decided they are only going to go after one kind of consumer: the affluent kind. That is not a winning strategy to make in impact on climate change. Instead of making the possiblities of sustainability only available to the top 1%, it would be nice if the focus could be shifted the the folks who could make the most difference: the rest of us in the bottom 99%.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement