Talk:Tesla Powerwall

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Technology 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 California: San Francisco Bay Area 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 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 High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment: Sustainability High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.

Pending to add connectivity options from Powerwall

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]

This should be moved to generic

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

WP:ANYONECANEDIT anyone can edit Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The warranted 5000 daily cycles would be 13.68 years. NCdave (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2017 (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

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]

I admit that the article is becoming messy - it's difficult to keep track of the aspects and structure. Can someone think of a different article PW structure?

It seems that PW2 and PP2 share the same cell chemistry (for now?). Perhaps a section about the 2170 cell could be shared (transcluded) between PW and PP articles. The Model 3 will use a different chemistry. TGCP (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For several months, the Powerpack has been featured in large scale installations (such as Nantucket, South Australia, Puerto Rico), which is quite unlike the Powerall. The two topics should be split apart. There's quite a deal of coverage on it, and the big political storm it caused in Australia as well. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article has become convoluted and should be split. Cell and module information is still lacking. TGCP (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2020 (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]

I agree that $/kWh is more clear. Also, there should be a clear difference between price per storage capacity and price per kWh delivered. The first figure is close to meaningless since it doesn't consider the expected life of the battery. A more meaningful figure would be the price per capacity divided by the number of cycles the battery can deliver during its lifetime. It seems there's no expected cycle life mentioned though, only a 10-year warranty with unlimited cycles (which would be quite a long life!). --Ita140188 (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of the Wh/$ unit is that higher numbers are better, which is always nice. Liters per 100km always threw me because of this :). But I suppose that given electricity prices are quoted in kWh, the $/kWh measure is probably easier to compare. (i.e. 500 $/kWh (capacity), 2000 cycles -> 0.25 $/kWh (overall)). Initially, I added the Wh/$ units, because the sources I came across used those units. However, this has evidently confused some people, resulting in them adding the $/kWh units. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think we should try to go with whatever is most common in our sources. Having both is a bit silly, unless both are commonly used.

I agree with Ita140188 that we should factor in the life cycle, although that is a somewhat more subjective assessment. Tesla doesn't (as far as I know) state anywhere actual number of cycles (other than "unlimited", I guess making the price 0), depth of cycles, etc. If/when tesla releases the required information, we should add this to the table as well. Crazy2be (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at other Wikipedia articles about batteries, they all quote the price in Wh/USD. See

Lead–acid_battery, for example. Crazy2be (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest having the same date format in all Tesla articles (2016-10-30). Many references are the same, and are more easily portable across articles if they have the same date format, style and so on. Content and source checking are where our efforts count the most, rather than appearance. TGCP (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the existing article does have at the top. I am therefore probably at fault with a recent edit as I am europe based and use dmy Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no objection. As long as it's consistent within the article.  Stepho  talk  08:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the "Tesla Powerwall" just a slightly newer model of the "Panasonic LJ-SK84A"? It's the exact same battery, just with a new lick of paint and the Tesla logo clumsily plastered on the front, right over the top of the Panasonic logo. Sure, we all realise that Tesla is just a front, a façade for the Japanese company, Panasonic, obviously Tesla basically exists so that Panasonic can bypass tariff barriers in America, but not to mention Panasonic anywhere in this article is disturbingly surreal, to say the least. Come on, let's be realistic and let's stick to the facts, Tesla is nothing more than Panasonic's bitch! -86.162.173.121

Please sign your comments. I agree that the cell level is not sufficiently covered in this article. You can elaborate on this, including this source. TGCP (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tesla Powerpack has significant coverage, and major installations, such as future installation in Nantucket, the political storm in Australia due to the installation in South Australia, and the recovery for Irma in Puerto Rico. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content growth is perhaps the best reason for split. So add the content, and everyone can see the difference. TGCP (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Someone with time just needs to do it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 years have now passed since the first split proposals, and not much has been added. Powerpack seems to have more in common with the Tesla Megapack than the PowerWall, so if someone will make the split I will no longer object. The tray modules have not been described, but I believe that all 3 use the same modules made from Nevada-2170 cells. Powerpack and Megapack have high-voltage components. TGCP (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Few times mentioned 200kWh, twice it is 210kWh. Price is from $398 to $250/kWh. Again - which one is it? Can you please correct those info? Thank you Sorry for format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.67.46 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a graph of shipments of stationary storage when I have time.

"In its first-quarter [2018] earnings report, Tesla reported that its energy storage deployments grew 161 percent from the previous quarter to 373 megawatt-hours."[3]

To say that the chemistry of the battery is NMC doesn't sit well with me, mostly because the cathode is such a small component. The solid cathode is NMC and anode would be graphite if memory-serves. The exact electrolyte is usually a trade-secret but might involve LiPF6. Yes, I'm nit-picking. 49.178.17.3 (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the edit and comment "Tesla uses its own naming, consistently. There is no agreed standard for naming the size, 21700 just happens to be more common among the other producers", I would suggest reading the wiki-linked page. In the table the primary ID indicated is 21700. It doesn't matter that Tesla names it own model 21-70: Tesla is not the only 21700 producer. And anyway, that should justify writing 21-70 cell and not 2170 cell. Try searching 2170: you get about 100 million hits which are not battery cells. Post code, railway class, constellation and stars, addresses of apartments, rulings, and so on. Tesla 2170 cells make less then a million hits. And Tesla 21-70 cells only 0,071 million. Try searching 21700: you get 17 million hits and the first bunch of pages are only about battery cells. That was the reason I made the edit. Conclusion, my position is: 21700 or 21-70 but not 2170. I would prefer 21700 because it helps finding the Powerwall article while cross searching web sites (as I was doing). If I didn't know the Powerwall existence, I would never have landed on the present article (which I reached with a second search "Powerwall"). --Robertiki (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla consistently uses the term 2170 (the first from 2016 said 21-70, and that is how "2170" is pronounced). The term 21700 is used by most manufacturers, but not Tesla. There is no requirement to use the same term for all cells of that size. Each wiki article can determine its own terms. TGCP (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you may see, I have changed to information content: "21700 cell type", adding "type"; and acknowledged the Tesla naming "Tesla names them 21-70". As explained, I would prefer the most used name: consistency makes the encyclopedia more easy to search. I like to think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not just a disjointed collection of news. --Robertiki (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the most used name. Make Google searches (without quote marks) for

Tesla 2170 (1.1 million)

Tesla 21700 (0.8 million)

and browse the first 50 results or so. The Tesla 2170 shows a lot of good sources, whereas the Tesla 21700 only shows few good sources, many of them pointing to 2170. Your mileage may vary, as Google adjusts search results to your search history. TGCP (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Tesla 2170 catches both Tesla and 2170 hits. You should force both: "Telsa" "Tesla" "2170" and so you get less than a million (not that that makes a big difference). The real difference is your searching Telsa with 21700, having just explained that Tesla once preferred 2170 and now 21-70 (which hits you haven't quoted), your search is skewing the result on the Tesla usage side. But the object in "21700 cell type" is not Tesla but that specific type of cell: that with 21 mm x 70.0 mm size. I have one question: what is the size of a 1025, using Tesla naming rules ? Instead of 10 mm x 2.5 mm, which is the answer ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, a 2170 is a 21 mm x 7.0 mm cell. --Robertiki (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much room for doubt. Tesla and most sources describing the Tesla cell, says 2170, not 21700 or 21-70. It is not relevant what other manufacturers choose to call their own cells. There is no official nomenclature for that size; anybody can call them whatever they want.

(Searching for Telsa yields much fewer results due to wrong spelling). If we search for

"Tesla" "2170" we get 0.8 million results, mostly good sources.

"Tesla" "21700" we get 0.7 million results, few good sources, and often pointing to 2170.

"Tesla" "21-70" we get 0.07 million results, mostly old.

I am not even sure Tesla writes 21-70 ; the sources that write that are mostly old. Tesla does however say twentyone seventy, because that is the diameter and height of the cell (I added the table wikilink nearly 3 years ago). Old sources then wrote that as 21-70, as stated above. This was then shortened to 2170, and used since maybe 2017. I didn't think this would be an issue, but there are plenty of sources to support 2170, few sources for the others. TGCP (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I searched Tesla and not Telsa, my wrong. I don't understand what is "official", but all battery cell manufacturers (except Tesla, which is primary a car builder and battery assembler) agree a simple coding convention: the first two digits are the diameter in millimeters, the following digits is the length in millimeters plus one decimal digit, with the decimal sign omitted. The length ranges from a couple of millimeters to tens of millimeters, so the second part may have two (as in 1025) or three digits (as in 21700). If you write 2170, it means 21 x 7.0 millimeters and not 70 millimeters. No ruling, but a agreed standard, which helps communicating (i.e. exchange of information). What should be the task of an encyclopedia ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An "official" nomenclature is something like the

SI units, where a community has a written and public agreement to use certain terms, but other terms (inch, pound, gallon) are also used. For cells of the twentyone seventy size, Panasonic and Tesla demonstrate

that they use their own term. I think most people understand twentyone seventy better than twentyone seven hundred or twentyone seventy dot zero for the size - if they care at all; the Tesla cells are generally not available.

If we go by Wikipedia standards, we report what the sources say, which is mostly 2170 as shown above, using the

neutral point of view

.

We can also be inspired the

WP:COMMONNAME

guide for titles : "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred" - if it's good enough for a title, it should be good enough for an in-article term.

One of the criteria is "Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects". Tesla required certain features in their cell when they designed it with Panasonic; a blowhole, different chemistry, outside fuse wire, etc. This is not well covered in the articles, but it should be - The Tesla 2170 cell may be notable enough for its own article. TGCP (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Tesla 2170 cell may be notable enough for its own article." ? Some new unique chemistry or revolutionary technology ? --Robertiki (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That, but most is secret and only scarcely documented or speculated, and not yet added - even Tesla's 18650 is not well described. TGCP (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube ? Are you kidding ? FYI no secrets with list. --Robertiki (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, documentation for the special tech is scarce (secret as opposed to patented), and that video seems to be speculation (as I said), not source despite building on 5-6 scientific links in the description [4] [5] [6] [7] .

It's the large amount of good sources for the 2170 name that matter - please start reading those. TGCP (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list here the list of links of these sources ? We could put the information in the article in a section about the cells. --Robertiki (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 0.8 million links about the Tesla 2170. I have added some over the years to various articles, and I expect others to take over. Finding the ones about the technology is time-consuming, but Google can be massaged to narrow the results. Searching for

Tesla 2170 technology

seems to yield interesting results, as well as suggesting similar search terms.

Note that Tesla used Samsung 21700 (non-Tesla) for the Hornsdale Power Reserve, but possibly also Tesla 2170. TGCP (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Tesla Powerpack installations has been added to Tesla Megapack. What do you think about the Powerpack sections here in Tesla Powerwall - do we keep it as it is, spawn it off into its own article Tesla Powerpack (currently empty), or merge it into Tesla Megapack ?

1) Keep Tesla Powerpack within Tesla Powerwall

2) Split Powerpack sections from Tesla Powerwall into Tesla Powerpack

3) Split Powerpack sections from Tesla Powerwall, merge into Tesla Megapack

I vote for option 2). Please reply with your vote first, and your comment next. TGCP (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should split Tshuva (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proper Tesla Megapack article.

I would probably agree with a separate article for each product as TGCP suggested. Plenty more detail on each. Just needs someone to find it all and make sure all three articles are good-quality and fit nicely together.Empire-ants (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]