IPWR is already working with LG Chem on projects with LG PV modules--JUST not this project. LG continues to work with IPWR despite working with other companies. This is LG Electronics so they might not follow lock step with LG Chem, but LG is using IPWR in many cases. One example doesn't create a "rule".
LG is doing everything they can to push their batteries.
Korea Times is reporting that Tesla has approached several battery manufacturers in order to “diversify its battery-sourcing channels beyond Japan’s Panasonic.”
Tesla is reportedly in talks with at least three additional battery makers. The list includes LG Chem, Samsung SDI and SK Innovations.
Tesla has set some lofty production goals for both the Model 3 in 2017 (up to 200,000 units) and overall EV production in 2018 (500,000 between the Model S, X and 3). Bringing in a large third party supplier for the component that Tesla is the most unlikely to have ready in such high volume inside that shortened time window (battery cells) would seem to be a logical step.
No comparison. In 2008 I worked as a consultant for Solyndra's largest potential customer to evaluate the product. The Solyndra people didn't understand the roofing industry, let alone the solar industry. They were free riders on the push for a greener economy from the left. IPWR is a lean machine compared to that gas bag of a company. Solyndra's corporate office was an obscene misuse of tax payer dollars and they used it quite well to grease politicos.
so little knowledge yet you are making sweeping conclusions--you aren't well versed in this field and haven't a clue about typical sales cycles or SGIP issues in CA. Perhaps you should be a mutual fund owner only
A new report demonstrates how battery storage combined with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems would lead to significant electric bill savings for both property owners and residents of multifamily affordable rental housing in California.
According to the authors of Closing the California Clean Energy Divide, the findings are particularly important given the recently enacted Assembly Bill 693, which established the state’s Multifamily Affordable Housing Solar Roofs (Solar Roofs) Program and provides up to $1 billion in cap-and-trade funding over 10 years to create incentives for installing solar PV systems starting in 2017.
Please see what LG is showing off. I can confirm they are using IPWR on the east coast but storage sales are very slow.
so instead of knowledge you supply school yard visions of your own past--ever here of projecting? You seem to always fall back on this weird narrative. Yet NO knowledge ever comes out of you to counter my facts.
you are not useful to this board despite your pretending to be in-the-know.
You must have missed the past 3 years of the inverter market's development in Europe-- when the string inverter started to make inroads into even the largest projects.
It is irresponsible to post this stuff as if you know what it is--and you don't. Sungrow's 60 kW wall mounted stringer is a MUCH better value proposition that Delta's contract manufactured product. Buying a reseller's stamped logo at a premium is STUPID.
IPWR's inverter isn't comparable since it has a third port that can handle storage w/o requiring additional equipment.
You and Sky go ahead and pretend you know what you are doing here. It is obvious you don't, and that upsets you the most.
common...don't even try to say that Delta is making technical strides. you can't be serious, but you are. "80 kW" is an odd rating and thus the ONLY reason why it is "the first". You should feel duped.
Note from STEM's CEO:
Since the February 23rd SGIP opening and subsequent announcement of results, we understand that letters, filings, allegations, and news articles have caused the energy storage community to question every aspect of the SGIP program, and have unfairly created the perception that Stem in some way violated the rules to achieve its level of success.
From day one, we have taken these allegations seriously. We understand that, given the limited funding available to meet the needs of hundreds of customers, the results of this new process were disappointing to several of our peers. Stem has been transparent and cooperative with the Commission, provided materials for review, and requested meetings to present details of our application submission approach.
It has therefore become clear to Stem that all stakeholders, especially the California ratepayers, are best served by avoiding lengthy, costly litigation and refocusing everyone on resuming the SGIP program.
THEY GOT CAUGHT inside the cookie jar and yet want to say they didn't steal any cookies. He reminds me of a child that would blame the cookie jar for the lid not being "secured". Did the dog eat his homework too??
put them together to get the link
Note: Nothing specifically about IPWR here.
Packing more power into each ABB container will be an interesting opportunity for IPWR.
Working within the confines of a shipping container should translate well.
nice to see someone on this board adding this issue--it is a big problem for CA.
LG is pushing hard into the U.S. market--I'll see if my contacts there will share anything. I doubt they will if this is a recent event at LG.
it is an 18-24 month sales cycle outside of CA's SGIP deals...some REV projects are getting through but utilities are not playing nice. Costs continue to fall 15-20% annually. Unfortunately compensation for services provided by solar/storage projects have yet to be finalized so utilities get free stuff for a while at least. FERC rulings are going to squeeze their nuts eventually and storage will be "paid" to serve and then the market really scales with reducing soft costs becoming the game.