Connect with us

Published

on

By Devonie McCamey

A quick scan of recent energy-related headlines and industry announcements shows rising interest in hybrids — and we are not talking about cars.

Hybrid renewable energy systems combine multiple renewable energy and/or energy storage technologies into a single plant, and they represent an important subset of the broader hybrid systems universe. These integrated power systems are increasingly being lauded as key to unlocking maximum efficiency and cost savings in future decarbonized grids — but a growing collection of National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) analysis indicates there are still challenges in evaluating the benefits of hybrids with the tools used to help plan those future grids.

In comparing hybrids to standalone alternatives, it is important to tackle questions like: Is it always beneficial to combine renewable and storage technologies, instead of siting each technology where their individual contributions to the grid can be maximized? Or are only certain hybrid designs beneficial? Does the energy research community consistently represent the characteristics of hybrids in power system models? And are we using common definitions when studying hybrids and their potential impacts?

Turning over a Magic 8-Ball might bring up the response: Concentrate and ask again.

“At NREL, we’re working to represent hybrid systems in our models in a more nuanced, detailed way to try to answer these questions — and ultimately advance the state of modeling to ensure consistency in how hybrids are treated across different tools,” said Caitlin Murphy, NREL senior analyst and lead author of several recent studies of hybrid systems. “With growing interest in these systems that can be designed and sized in lots of different ways, it’s crucial to determine the value they provide to the grid — in the form of energy, capacity, and ancillary services — particularly relative to deploying each technology separately.”

The results of this body of work highlight some gaps between what different models show and what many in the energy community have — perhaps prematurely — proclaimed when it comes to the value of hybrid systems to the future grid.

“Hybridization creates opportunities and challenges for the design, operation, and regulation of energy markets and policies — and current data, methods, and analysis tools are insufficient for fully representing the costs, value, and system impacts of hybrid energy systems,” said Paul Denholm, NREL principal energy analyst and coauthor. “Ultimately, our research points to a need for increased coordination across the research community and with industry, to encourage consistency and collaboration as we work toward answers.”

First, What Do We Mean When We Talk About Hybrid Systems? NREL Proposes a Taxonomy To Delineate What Makes a System a True Hybrid

Finding answers starts with speaking the same language. To help researchers move toward a shared vocabulary around systems that link renewable energy and storage technologies, Murphy and fellow NREL analysts Anna Schleifer and Kelly Eurek published a paper proposing a new taxonomy.

Schematic showing several proposed technology combinations for hybrid energy systems. NREL’s literature review identified several proposed technology combinations. Blue nodes represent variable renewable energy (VRE) technologies, green nodes represent energy storage technology types, and orange nodes represent less-variable renewable energy (RE) technologies or systems; arcs indicate technology pairs that have been proposed in the literature. PV: photovoltaic; RoR: run-of-river; HESS: hybrid energy storage system; CSP + TES: concentrating solar power with thermal energy storage; the Mechanical storage icon encompasses compressed air energy storage and flywheels, both of which ultimately convert the stored energy to electricity. Source: “A Taxonomy of Systems that Combine Utility-Scale Renewable Energy and Energy Storage Technologies

“Our ability to quantify hybrids’ potential impacts could be hindered by inconsistent treatment of these systems, as well as an incomplete understanding of which aspects of hybridization will have the greatest influence,” Murphy said. “Ultimately, we hope our proposed taxonomy will encourage consistency in how the energy community thinks about and evaluates hybrids’ costs, values, and potential.”

After a thorough literature review, the team developed a new organization scheme for utility-scale systems that combine renewable and energy storage technologies — only a subset of which can truly be called “hybrids.” They came up with three categories based on whether the systems involve locational or operational linkages, or both.

“We found that technology combinations do not represent a meaningful delineation between hybrids and non-hybrids — the nature of the linkages are more important distinctions,” Murphy said.

The resulting categories can help inform policy considerations, as they define system characteristics that could challenge existing permitting, siting, interconnection process, and policy implementations. The taxonomy is also helpful in informing model development efforts, as the categories identify the unique characteristics that must be reflected to adequately represent hybrid systems in a model — including the effects of the linkages on both a project’s costs and the values it can deliver to the grid.

That is where NREL’s next set of analyses comes in.

In a series of recent reports, NREL analysts homed in on a set of technology combinations and linkages that are consistent with a true hybrid system — co-optimizing the design and self-scheduling of linked technologies to maximize net economic benefits.

To do this, NREL modeled hybrid systems using three different tools that underpin many of the laboratory’s forward-looking power system studies. These analyses focus on DC-coupled solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage (PV+battery) hybrids, which are increasingly being proposed for the power system.

Can We Improve How Capacity Expansion Models Assess the Value of PV+Battery Hybrids? “Signs Point to Yes.”

Combining PV and battery technologies into a single hybrid system could lower costs and increase energy output relative to separate systems — but accurately assessing PV+battery systems’ market potential requires improved methods for estimating the cost and value contribution in capacity expansion models, including those that utilities use for integrated resource planning.

In Representing DC-Coupled PV+Battery Hybrids in a Capacity Expansion Model, Eurek, Murphy, and Schleifer teamed up with fellow NREL analysts Wesley Cole, Will Frazier, and Patrick Brown to demonstrate a new method for incorporating PV+battery systems in NREL’s publicly available Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) capacity expansion model.

“The method leverages ReEDS’ existing treatment of separate PV and battery technologies, so the focus is on capturing the interactions between them for a hybrid with a shared bidirectional inverter,” Eurek said. “While we apply this method to ReEDS, we anticipate that our approach can be useful for informing PV+battery method development in other capacity expansion models.”

The research team used the method to explore a range of scenarios for the United States through 2050, using different cost assumptions that are uncertain and expected to influence how competitive PV+battery hybrids will be. These include the cost of hybrid systems relative to separate PV and battery projects, the battery component’s qualification for the solar investment tax credit (ITC), and future cost trajectories for PV and battery systems.

“From the full suite of scenarios, we find that the future deployment of utility-scale PV+battery hybrids depends strongly on the level of cost savings that can be achieved through hybridization. So, greater sharing of balance-of-system costs, reductions in financial risk, or modularity can all lead to greater PV+battery hybrid deployment,” Eurek said. “Deployment is also highly sensitive to the battery component’s ability to arbitrage, based on charging from the grid when prices are low and selling back to the grid when prices are high.”

In all scenarios explored, the synergistic value in a PV+battery hybrid helps it capture a greater share of generation, which primarily displaces separate PV and battery projects. In other words, the model results indicate that there is strong competition between PV+battery hybrids and separate PV and battery deployments — although it is important to note that the modeling does not reflect the faster and simpler interconnection process for hybrid projects, which could shift the competition with other resource types as well. In addition, if the PV+battery hybrid is designed and operated to ensure the battery component can qualify for the solar ITC, that could accelerate near-term deployment of PV+battery hybrids.

The team notes several ways in which future PV+battery system modeling could be improved — regardless of which capacity expansion model is used. A top priority is improving the representation of the battery component, including operations-dependent degradation — which may be distinct for hybrid versus standalone battery systems — and temporary operational restrictions associated with its qualification for the solar ITC. In addition, modeling retrofits of existing PV systems to add batteries may be especially important, since this is often considered one of the fastest ways to get PV+battery hybrids onto the grid.

What About Hybrids’ System-Level Operational Benefits? “Outlook Good.”

The operation and value of PV+battery hybrids have been extensively studied from the perspective of project developers through analyses that maximize plant-level revenue. But hybrid systems’ operational characteristics have rarely been studied from the perspective of grid operators, who work to maintain reliability and maximize affordability by optimizing the performance of a suite of generation and storage assets.

In Evaluating Utility-Scale PV-Battery Hybrids in an Operational Model for the Bulk Power System, NREL analysts Venkat Durvasulu, Murphy, and Denholm present a new approach for representing and evaluating PV+battery hybrids in the PLEXOS production cost model, which can be used to optimize the operational dispatch of generation and storage capacity to meet load across the U.S. bulk power system.

Production cost models are an important tool used by utilities and other power system planners to analyze the reliability, affordability, and sustainability associated with proposed resource plans. Here, NREL demonstrated a technique to enhance a production cost model to represent the operational synergies of PV+battery hybrids.

“We used a test system developed for NREL’s recent Los Angeles 100% Renewable Energy Study — replacing existing PV and battery generators on this modeled system with PV+battery hybrids,” Denholm said.

The research team analyzed different scenarios that were designed to isolate the various drivers of operational strategies for PV+battery hybrids — including how the technologies are coupled, the overall PV penetration on the system, and different inverter loading ratios (or degrees of over-sizing the PV array relative to its interconnection limit).

Results show multiple system-level benefits, as the growing availability of PV energy with increasing inverter loading ratio resulted in increased utilization of the inverter (i.e., resulting in a higher capacity factor), a reduction in grid charging (in favor of charging from the local PV, which is more efficient), and a decrease in system-wide production cost.

This chart shows the destination of all PV direct-current (DC) energy collected over the course of a year for simulated PV+battery hybrids as a function of inverter load ratio (ILR). In addition to demonstrating the growing availability of PV DC energy with increasing ILR, the breakdown of utilized PV DC energy indicates that most is sent directly to the grid and 15%–25% is used to charge the local battery. AC = alternating current. Source: Evaluating Utility-Scale PV-Battery Hybrids in Operational Models for the Bulk Power System

“The approach we present here can be used in any production cost modeling study of PV+battery hybrids as a resource in different power system configurations and services,” Durvasulu said. “This is a critical step toward being able to evaluate the system-level benefits these hybrids can provide, and improving our understanding of how a grid operator might call on and use such systems.”

How Could the Value of Hybrids Evolve Over Time? “Reply Hazy, Try Again.”

The third report in the series brings yet another modeling method to the table: price-taker modeling, which quantifies the value that can be realized by PV+battery systems — and explores how this value varies across multiple dimensions.

In “The Evolving Energy and Capacity Values of Utility-Scale PV-Plus-Battery Hybrid System Architectures,” Schleifer, Murphy, Cole, and Denholm explore how the value of PV+battery hybrids could evolve over time — with highly varied results.

Using a price-taker model with synthetic hourly electricity prices from now to 2050 (based on outputs from the ReEDS and PLEXOS models), NREL simulated the revenue-maximizing dispatch of three PV+battery architectures in three locations. The architectures vary in terms of whether the PV+battery systems have separate inverters or a shared inverter and whether the battery can charge from the grid. The locations vary in terms of the quality of the solar resource and the grid mix, both of which influence the potential value of PV+battery hybrids.

“We found that the highest-value architecture today varies largely based on PV penetration and peak-price periods, including when they occur and how extreme they are,” Schleifer said. “Across all the systems we studied, we found that hybridization could either improve or hurt project economics. And no single architecture was the clear winner — in some cases, you want to take advantage of a shared inverter, and in other cases, separate inverters and grid charging are too valuable to give up.”

The results of this price-taker analysis show that a primary benefit of coupling the studied technologies is reduced costs from shared equipment, materials, labor, and infrastructure. But in the absence of oversizing the PV array, hybridization does not offer more value than separate PV and battery systems. In fact, hybridization can actually reduce value if the systems are not appropriately configured — which means appropriately sizing and coupling the battery and likely oversizing the PV array relative to the inverter or interconnection limit.

Another important finding is that both subcomponents stand to benefit from hybridization. As PV penetration grows, the additional energy and capacity value of a new PV system declines rapidly — but coupling the PV with battery storage helps to maintain the value of PV by allowing it to be shifted to periods where the system can provide greater value. In addition, coupled PV can help increase the total revenue of the battery by displacing grid-charged energy, which typically has non-zero cost.

“As the role of PV+battery hybrids on the bulk power system continues to grow, it will be increasingly important to understand the impact of design parameters on economic performance,” Schleifer said. “Additional analysis is needed to tease out the factors that impact the performance and economics of PV+battery hybrid systems — and give system planners and researchers clearer answers about their possible benefits.”

Working Toward “Without a Doubt:” A Call for Coordination To Resolve the Remaining Unknowns

Looking at this collection of work, one thing is clear: No current model is an accurate Magic 8-Ball for predicting hybrids’ future value — but coordinated efforts to improve our models can bring the research community a step closer to a clear outlook.

And momentum is building: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has convened the DOE Hybrids Task Force — which worked with NREL, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and seven other national laboratories to develop the recently released Hybrid Energy Systems: Opportunities for Coordinated Research, which highlights innovative opportunities to spur joint research on hybrid energy systems in three research areas. That effort touches on the PV+battery hybrids described in this article, and it also considers additional technology combinations that could have a growing role in the future, including PV+windnuclear+electrolysis, and other low-emitting hybrid systems.

“While the power system was originally developed as single-technology plants, and many of our research efforts have been siloed to individual technologies, the DOE Hybrid Task Force represents a step toward collaboration,” Murphy said. “We were able to identify several high-priority research opportunities that span multiple technologies, establish common priorities, and lay a foundation for further dialogue.”

In the days ahead, NREL is uniquely poised to further the validation of hybrid system performance and operation with the Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems (ARIES) research platform. ARIES introduces both a physical and a near-real-world virtual emulation environment with high-fidelity, physics-based, real-time models that facilitate the connection between hundreds of real hardware devices and tens of millions of simulated devices.

Integrated energy pathways modernizes our grid to support a broad selection of generation types, encourages consumer participation, and expands our options for transportation electrification.

Ultimately, advancing hybrid systems research at NREL and other national laboratories will require more coordination with industry. The DOE Hybrids Task Force report identified the need for a multistakeholder workshop to take a deep dive into what is motivating different stakeholders to propose and deploy different types of hybrid systems.

“By creating opportunities to directly solicit insights from industry, utility planners, and other stakeholders, we can move toward a deeper understanding of what sources of value are driving industry interest in hybrids,” Murphy said. “Is there inherent value that can only be unlocked through hybridization, or is some of the value embedded in the familiar? By adding storage to variable resources, we can make them look and participate more like the controllable resources we are used to having on the power system.

“Bringing the key players together will help us as researchers to recognize these motivations — some of which we might not currently understand — and close the gap in how to represent them in our models.”

Learn more about NREL’s energy analysis and grid modernization research.

Article courtesy of the NREL, the U.S. Department of Energy

Featured photo by Ramón Salinero on Unsplash


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Read the wild email Tesla is sending to suppliers amid Supercharger chaos

Published

on

By

Read the wild email Tesla is sending to suppliers amid Supercharger chaos

After firing its entire Supercharger team, Tesla has sent out an email to suppliers which shows just how chaotic the decisionmaking leading up to the firings must have been.

Earlier this week, Tesla abruptly fired its entire Supercharging team, leading to an immediate pullback in Supercharger installation plans. Now we’ve seen the email that Tesla has sent to suppliers, and it’s not pretty.

When the firings were announced Monday night, there was little information about how they would affect Tesla’s plans.

On Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that “Tesla still plans to grow the Supercharger network, just at a slower pace for new locations and more focus on 100% uptime and expansion of existing locations.” According to Tesla’s website, Superchargers currently have 99.95% uptime.

But in the interim, we’ve already heard about Supercharger projects being cancelled, including halting rollout in the entire country of Australia, including sites that had already been subject to long-term leases and given the go-ahead for construction which will now be abandoned.

And Tesla has also sent out an email to all of its suppliers, which leaked to the internet. Here it is in full, but with contact information redacted:

To all concerned:

You may be aware that there has been a recent adjustment with the Supercharger organization which is presently undergoing a sudden and thorough restructuring. If you have already received this email, please disregard it as we are attempting to connect with our suppliers and contractors. As part of this process, we are in the midst of establishing new leadership roles, prioritizing projects, and streamlining our payment procedures. Due to the transitional nature of this phase, we are asking for your patience with our response time.

I understand that this period of change may be challenging and that patience is not easy when expecting to be paid, however, I want to express my sincere appreciation for your understanding and support as we navigate through this transition. At this time, please hold on breaking ground on any newly awarded construction projects and planned pre-construction walks. If currently working on an active Supercharging construction site, please continue. Contact [email redacted] for further questions, comments, and concerns. Additionally, hold on working on any new material orders. Contact [email redacted] for further questions, comments, and concerns. If waiting on delayed payment, please contact [email redacted] for a status update. Thank you for your cooperation and patience.

The email is remarkable for several reasons, largely because it shows a lack of structure and consideration to the decision to fire the entire team.

Firstly, Tesla states that it is “attempting” to connect with suppliers and that it may have sent multiple emails to some of them. This suggests that Tesla doesn’t have an established method of contact for all of its suppliers – either it doesn’t have a master contact list, or its previous method including points of contact within Tesla is not usable because, well, those points of contact would have been fired.

Second, it says that the “adjustment” (an odd word for firing an entire department) has led to a process of establishing new leadership roles. This is typically something that a company would consider before changing leaders, and ensure that there are current employees with experience who are ready to step up to take the position of a retiring leader, perhaps with a period of mentorship prior to the outgoing leader’s retirement.

Even in a situation where a firing is sudden, it’s typically reasonable to elevate a previous second-in-command to fill the void. This is why it’s beneficial to have a deep bench – something which Tesla has touted before.

Third, Tesla goes on to mention that these suppliers are “expecting to be paid,” which suggests that Tesla is likely to welch on its payment obligations, at least in the short term. We have seen Musk refuse to pay bills before, so mention of skipping out on payment must raise alarm bells for suppliers who have been working in good faith with Tesla.

Finally, Tesla asks for suppliers to continue construction on active projects, but to hold on breaking ground or doing pre-construction site walks. This could be considered unclear, as there are many parallel steps to approval, permitting and construction of sites, so it’s hard to set a single line that is easily communicated about which sites should continue and which sites shouldn’t. Presumably, site contacts within Tesla would be able to reach out to individual sites and tell them whether to continue construction or not – if they were still working there, which it seems they are not.

To ask for patience is reasonable when an unforeseen circumstance hits a company, but this is not an unforeseen circumstance – it is entirely self-inflicted by Tesla.

Other charging providers have reacted to Tesla’s disruption of its own Supercharger plans, with at least one company, Revel, suggesting that it’s ready to swoop in on “really good sites” that Tesla left on the table, particularly in Revel’s home in New York City.

Electrek’s Take

We have heard from several sources who told us that the reason for these firings is because Rebecca Tinucci, former head of Tesla’s EV Charging division, resisted Musk’s demand to fire large portions of her team.

While this is hearsay, it’s plausible considering the language in Musk’s letter announcing the firings – which claimed that some executives are not taking headcount reduction seriously, and made a point to say that executives who retain the wrong employees may see themselves and their whole teams cut. It isn’t a stretch to think that Musk included those demands since they were related to his firing of Tinucci and her team.

The Supercharging team was one of the more successful and crucial teams within Tesla, and many observers consider the Supercharger network to be Tesla’s primary “moat” that makes it better than the competition. Tinucci was also responsible for negotiating NACS agreements across the industry, leading to a huge win when Tesla’s plug became the de facto standard after basically every automaker adopted it over the course of the last year.

Superchargers are also incredibly important, especially in North America. In Europe there are more successful non-Tesla charge providers, but in NA, Tesla is the big dog. And if infrastructure is important, then Tesla pulling back is bad not just for Tesla but for EVs as a whole.

It seems abundantly clear that, whatever explanation we accept, the firing of the Supercharger team was not well-considered (and our readers seem to agree). Even if headcount reduction is necessary, the whole team shouldn’t be laid off. Even if it was necessary as a retaliatory measure – which would not be a good rationale – it still would be wiser to retain some part of it so as to avoid the chaos suggested by the email above.

Whatever mechanism led to the firing, it does fit into a pattern of increasingly erratic behavior that Musk has been showing lately.

Many possible explanations have been advanced to explain this behavior, and most of them don’t increase my personal faith that Musk will make the right decisions with Tesla.

As I said in our original post about Tesla’s first round of layoffs, we do need Tesla to keep pushing the industry forward. While Pandora’s box is open and EVs are here to stay at this point, regardless of Tesla’s ups and comparatively-rare downs, the rest of the industry is still trying hard to pump the brakes on the transition, even if it means America will be less competitive if those companies get their way.

Tesla is one of the few entities that is large enough and committed enough to dragging those timelines forward, whether the rest of the industry likes it or not. We need a healthy Tesla, and for that, we need steadier management. This email is not an example of that – and neither are most of Musk’s managerial actions recently.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Podcast: more Tesla layoffs, charging team all gone, what is going on? Let’s talk about it

Published

on

By

Podcast: more Tesla layoffs, charging team all gone, what is going on? Let's talk about it

On the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the additional Tesla layoffs, the entire charging team’s departure, and more. Let’s talk about it.

Sponsored by SplitVolt: The Splitvolt Splitter Switch automatically shares power from your existing 240V dryer socket with your Level 2 EV charger. Learn more here.

The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.

As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.

After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:

We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.

Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:

Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Save up to $570 on Lectric e-bike bundles, Rad Power flash sale, EVOLV e-scooter special, and more

Published

on

By

Save up to 0 on Lectric e-bike bundles, Rad Power flash sale, EVOLV e-scooter special, and more

Today’s Green Deals are jam-packed once more with EV sales to get you geared-up for the cruising months ahead, led by Lectric eBikes’ 5-year anniversary celebration that is taking up to $570 off select e-bikes, like the XPedition Single-Battery Cargo e-bike at $1,399, while also giving away choices of five add-on accessories. It is joined by Rad Powers’ latest flash sale that is dropping the RadRunner 2 Utility e-bike to $1,299 and also offering free accessories on two other models, as well as a rare special from EVOLV that is dropping the PRO V2 Electric Scooter to its $1,799 low. Plus all of the other days’ Green Deals that are still going.

Head below for other New Green Deals we’ve found today and, of course, Electrek’s best EV buying and leasing deals. Also, check out the new Electrek Tesla Shop for the best deals on Tesla accessories.

Lectric takes up to $570 off e-bike bundles

Lectric eBikes is currently celebrating its five-year anniversary, and wanting to extend the celebrations to its customers, has launched a new limited-time sale that is offering five free accessories along with your purchase of either an XP 3.0, XPedition, or XP Trike e-bike. A standout amongst the bunch is the XPedition Single-Battery Cargo e-bike for $1,399 shipped. Down from its usual $1,933 price tag, we only saw it fall to this price for a short-lived period in March before rising to stay at $1,475 since, but today’s deal is bringing things back to the all-time low once more. You’ll find the dual-battery model down to the second-lowest $1,699 rate. It should also be noted that you’ll automatically see the discounted rate once the e-bike and the accessories have been added to your cart.

The Lectric XPedition e-bike was designed for those who are always on the go – especially folks like parents dropping off and picking up their kids from school or delivery drivers who need long travel ranges. It comes equipped with an upgraded 750W rear hub-motor (1310W peak) alongside a 48V battery that carries the e-bike up to 75 miles on a single charge (150 miles with dual-battery), hitting speeds of 20 MPH using only the throttle and up to 28 MPH with the five levels of pedal assistance. It comes with a variety of features to enhance your ride: the integrated cargo rack, custom puncture-resistant tires, hydraulic mineral oil brakes paired with 180mm rotors, a headlamp, taillights, fenders on both wheels, and a backlit LCD display that gives you all the real-time performance data.

Rad Power RadRunner 2 Utility e-bike now $1,299

Rad Power Bikes has launched a flash sale through May 8 that is giving you three varying deals on three different e-bike models; either a $100 off discount or free accessories. The first of these deals is on the RadRunner 2 Utility e-bike for $1,299 shipped. Usually fetching $1,399 since the company lowered prices across its lineup of models, we’ve seen this e-bike included in most of the company’s holiday sales as well as several flash sales throughout the months, often falling to $1,299, but we have seen one instance of the price dropping further to the $1,199 low. Today’s deal is a solid $100 markdown off the going rate that lands at the second-lowest price we have tracked.

Carrying the mantle as Rad Power’s jack-of-all-trades model, the RadRunner 2 comes equipped with a 750W brushless-geared hub motor and 672Wh battery that propels it to a max speed of 20 MPH and travels up to 50 miles on a single charge. It features a four-level pedal assist with a low-profile cadence sensor, and a simple control panel that gives you the battery’s charge level and allows you to adjust pedal assistance settings. It also comes stocked with a rear-mounted cargo rack that offers a 120-pound payload, puncture-resistant fat tires, a standard LED headlight, and an integrated taillight with both brake light and flash mode capabilities.

The second deal is on the RadRunner 3 Plus for $2,099, which comes with a free accessory worth up to $100. This model comes with a 750W rear hub motor and 672Wh battery that hits a max speed of 20 MPH for 45+ miles on a single charge. It has been upgraded with one extra pedal assist level and offers much of the same array of features as the above deal, with the added bonus of fenders for both tires and a full digital display.

The RadTrike e-tricycle is also receiving a free accessory as part of this sale, albeit a pre-designated large basket for front-side mounting for $1,599. It comes with an equally powerful motor as the above models, but with a smaller 480Wh battery that only reaches a max speed of 14 MPH for a much longer 55+ miles of travel range on a single charge. You’ll also get the full list of features from the above deal as well to round out the package.

This flash sale will continue through May 8, with the discounts on the RadRunner 3 Plus and RadTrike being automatically applied in cart when you add both items to your cart. You can browse through Rad Power’s included accessories here. And head over to our Green Deals hub to look through all the other e-bike brands that are having spring sales, as well as deals on power stations, electric tools, water heaters, and more.

Three different frames with the EVOLV PRO V2 Electric Scooter against the night sky with city skyline in background, within post for Lectric 5-year anniversary sale that has the XPedition Cargo e-bike at $1,399

EVOLV PRO V2 Electric Scooter hits $1,799 low

EVOLV is offering a $200 off special on two of its electric scooter models, like the popular PRO V2 Electric Scooter for $1,799 shippedafter using the on-page promo code PROV2-ROCKS at checkout. Down from its $1,999 price tag, we’ve seen a few different discounts drop over the last year on this particular model since its release, all of them falling to the same $1,799 low during major holiday shopping events like Black Friday and Christmas sales. Today’s deal is no different, coming in as a solid $200 markdown that lands at the lowest price we have tracked.

The PRO V2 e-scooter comes equipped with dual 1,200W motors (2,600W peak) and a 52V battery that carries the scooter up to a max speed of 44 MPH for up to 37 miles on a single charge. You can also upgrade to the Pro-R V2 model for an additional $300 ($500 normally – the above promo code works for this upgraded model as well), boosting your motors to 1,400W of nominal power each and extending travel distance up to 50 miles on a single charge. They both feature front and rear spring suspension, front and rear hydraulic disc brakes, a front fender light, a taillight, running lights, turn signal lights, an IP54 water-resistance rating, and a smart center display – all with a foldable design for easy storage and transport when not in use.

The second model included in this special sale is the CORSA Electric Scooter for $2,635 shippedafter using the on-page promo code CORSA-ROCKS at checkout. This model also sports dual 1,200W motors (but with a 4,800W peak) and a larger 60V battery that hits 44 MPH for up to 37 miles on a single charge. It comes with 11-inch tubeless street-style grippy tires, front and rear shock suspension, dual hydraulic disc brakes, twin Halo LED headlights, in-deck lighting, twin LED taillights, turn signal lights, and a large center display.

Spring e-bike deals!

Other new Green Deals landing this week

The savings this week are also continuing to a collection of other markdowns. To the same tune as the offers above, these all help you take a more energy-conscious approach to your routine. Winter means you can lock in even better off-season price cuts on electric tools for the lawn while saving on EVs and tons of other gear.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending