A customer inspects a Tesla Motors Inc. Powerwall unit inside a home.
Ian Thomas Jansen-Lonnquist | Bloomberg | Getty Images
After a summer of extreme weather and wildfires and now during the peak of hurricane season, the power going out again is becoming familiar to more Americans. That means it may be a good time to consider a home backup power storage system.
The pervasiveness of extreme weather and climate change, local utility reliability and cost may all factor into this financial decision.
“Backup power may be warranted depending on regional factors and geography as well as the state of the infrastructure there,” said Benjamin R. Dierker, executive director of the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, a research and educational organization, in an email.
In coastal areas, for instance, considerations include the resilience of storm or sea walls, the quality and capacity of drainage infrastructure and the electrical grid’s hardiness, he said. In other areas, extreme weather conditions like high winds, tornados and ice may cause falling trees or downed lines — a risk that’s significantly mitigated if there are buried utility lines rather than overhead lines, Dierker said. Pre-emptive shutdowns, due to extreme weather or other factors, can also be a consideration.
As of Sept. 11, there have been 23 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each to affect United States, according to the National Centers for Environmental Information, which has a graphic that shows the locations of these disasters. These events included two flooding events, 18 severe storm events, one tropical cyclone event, one wildfire event, and one winter storm event.
Here’s what consumers need to consider about home back-up power options:
Appliance needs during power outages
A good first step is to think about the most important appliances you are running on electricity and how long you might realistically need them to run in the event of an outage, said Vikram Aggarwal, chief executive and founder of EnergySage, which helps consumers compare clean home energy solutions.
If you have minimal backup needs, a small portable fossil-fuel generator or battery could suffice, which can cost a few hundred dollars. But if you want your home to operate as normal, you’ll want to consider whole home options.
Location can be a factor since in some areas, the power goes out infrequently or for only short periods of time. In some states like California, Texas and Louisiana, however, it can be a whole different ball game. California consumers, for example, can get an up-to-date sense of outages in their area to get a sense of what their risk may be.
Fossil fuel vs. battery power
If you’re not opposed to fossil fuel-powered options, there are several categories to consider based on your power needs. For lower power needs, a portable generator, which often runs on gasoline or diesel can cost a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars. There are also higher-priced portable versions that are usually quieter and more fuel-efficient and may be able to power multiple large appliances—and for longer. How long depends in part on the appliances you’re powering.
A whole home standby generator, meanwhile, is permanently installed and automatically kicks on when the power goes out. This generator type is often fueled by propane or natural gas and costs vary based on size, brand and fuel type. There are options in the $3,000 to $5,000 range, but with installation the total can be considerably higher. This could be a good option if you’re expecting outages for multiple days; theoretically, the generator can run for as long as fuel is supplied, but it can be advisable to shut it down for engine-cooling purposes.
For the environmentally-inclined, battery-powered backups can be a good option for their more environmentally friendly and quieter nature. For a few hundred dollars, give or take, there are lower-priced smaller to mid-size battery options that people can purchase and that will last for several hours.
There are also battery-powered options to back up the whole home that offer many of the same functions as conventional generators, but without the need for refueling, according to EnergySage. Consumers might expect to pay $10,000 to $20,000 to install a home battery backup system, EnergySage said. This can often last for eight to 12 hours, or even longer if you aren’t using it to power items such as air conditioning or electric heat.
Incentives that lower the cost of purchase and installation
When thinking about what type of backup to choose, incentives can factor into the equation. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, households can receive a 30% tax credit for a battery storage installation, even if it’s not paired with a solar system, Aggarwal said.
Other state and local incentives may also be available. For instance, in some markets like California, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York, utilities pay consumers to tap into their batteries during peak periods like the summer, Aggarwal said. Consumers with larger batteries—10kWh or more—may be able to earn hundreds of dollars a year, he said.
EVs as a backup power option for the home
Some electrical vehicles can be used to back up essential items, or, in some cases, a whole home.
Ford’s F-150 Lightning, for example, can power a home for three days, or up to 10 days under certain circumstances, according to the company. With the required system installed, and the truck plugged in, stored power is transferred seamlessly to the home in the case of a power outage. For its part, GM recently said it would expand its vehicle-to-home bidirectional charging technology to its entire lineup of Ultium-based electric vehicles by model year 2026.
“If you’re contemplating spending $10,000 on a whole home gas generator system, why not think about an EV with this capability instead?” said Stephen Pantano, head of market transformation at Rewiring America, a nonprofit focused on electrifying homes, businesses and communities.
Consumers in the market for a new stove might also consider an induction model with an integrated battery to power it or other items such a fridge on an as-needed basis, Pantano said. “This opens up new possibilities for power backups that weren’t there before.”
Solar-plus-storage can lead to long-term savings
Home solar panels are becoming more popular, but most are connected to the grid, and you need some kind of battery storage in order to have backup power, said Sarah Delisle, vice president of government affairs and communications for Swell Energy, a home energy solutions provider.
That’s where a solar-plus-storage system can come in handy. It allows people to use electricity generated from their solar panels during the day at a later point, which can be particularly useful for people who live in areas where there are frequent power outages, said Ted Tiffany, senior technical lead at the Building Decarbonization Coalition, a group that promotes moving buildings off fossil fuels.
A solar-plus-storage system costs about $25,000 to $35,000, depending on the size of the battery and other factors, according to the U.S. Dept of Energy. It’s easier and more cost-effective to install panels and the battery at the same time, but it’s not required. Homeowners who have already installed solar panels and want to add storage, might expect to pay between $12,000 to $22,000 for a battery, according to the Energy Department. Consumers who purchase a battery on its own or with backup are eligible for federal tax credits. Some states provide additional solar battery incentives.
Also consider the long-term savings potential, Tiffany said. He has a family member who, with electrical upgrades, spent around $8,000 on a fossil fuel-powered whole home generator. Putting that money into solar instead might have been more economical because of the energy savings over time and tax incentives, he said.
Consumers can visit EnergySage to find contractors and get information about solar and incentives. They can also visit, Switch is On, which helps consumers find information on electrification and efficiency measures for home appliances that supports the renewable energy integration.
China’s Dongfang Electric has installed a 26-megawatt offshore wind turbine, snatching the title of world’s most powerful from Siemens Gamesa’s 21.5 turbine in Denmark.
Photo: Dongfang Electric Corporation
The Chinese state-owned manufacturer announced today that it has installed the world’s most powerful wind turbine prototype at a testing and certification base. This turbine, the world’s largest for capacity and size, boasts a blade wheel diameter of more than 310 meters (1,107 feet) and a hub height of 185 meters (607 feet). Dongfang shipped the turbine’s nacelle earlier this month – the world’s heaviest – along with three blades.
This offshore wind turbine is designed for areas with wind speeds of 8 meters per second and above. With average winds of 10 meters per second, just one of these giants can generate 100 GWh of power annually, which is enough to power 55,000 homes. That’s enough to cut standard coal consumption by 30,000 tons and reduce CO2 emissions by 80,000 tons. Dongfang says it’s wind resistant up to 17 (200 km/h) on the extended Beaufort scale.
In May, Dongfang said it had completed static load testing on the turbine’s blades, and the turbine is now undergoing fatigue testing, which could take up to a year before the turbine is fully certified.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The autonomous ag equipment experts behind the GUSS robotic sprayers have been developing their AI tech as part of a JV with John Deere for years — and now, that marriage is official. John Deere has acquired 100% of GUSS, and has big plans to pick up that tech and run with it like a … well, you know.
Since then, interest in automated ag equipment has only grown — fueled not just by rising demand for affordable food and produce, but by a national labor shortage made worse by the Trump Administration’s tough anti-immigration policies as well. It’s specifically those challenges around labor availability, input costs, and crop protection that GUSS and John Deere have been spending millions to address.
“Fully integrating GUSS into the John Deere portfolio is a continuation of our dedication to serving high-value crop customers with advanced, scalable technologies to help them do more with less,” explains Julien Le Vely, director, Production Systems, High Value & Small Acre Crops, at John Deere. “GUSS brings a proven solution to a fast-growing segment of agriculture, and its team has a deep understanding of customer needs in orchards and vineyards. We’re excited to have them fully part of the John Deere team.”
Advertisement – scroll for more content
About GUSS
GUSS autonomous farm sprayer; via John Deere.
The GUSS electric sprayer is powered by a Kreisel Battery Pack 63 (KBP63), which has a nominal energy capacity of 63 kWh, enabling the machine to operate for 10-12 continuous hours between overnight (L2) charges.
The GUSS electric sprayers feature the Smart Apply weed detection system that measures chlorophyll in the various plants it encounters, identifying weeds embedded among the crops, and only sprays where weeds are detected. The company claims its weed detecting tech significantly reduces the amount of chemicals being sprayed onto farmers’ crops, resulting in “up to 90% savings” in sprayed material.
John Deere’s deep pockets will support GUSS as it continues to expand its global reach, and help the group to accelerate Smart Apply’s innovation and integration with other John Deere precision agriculture technologies.
“Joining John Deere enables us to tap into their unmatched innovative capabilities in precision agriculture technologies to bring our solutions to more growers around the world,” says Gary Thompson, GUSS’ COO. “Our team is passionate about helping high-value crop growers increase their efficiency and productivity in their operations, and together with John Deere, we will have the ability to have an even greater impact.”
GUSS-brand autonomous sprayers will be sold and serviced exclusivelythrough John Deere dealers, and the GUSS business will retain its name, branding, employees, and independent manufacturing facility in Kingsburg, California.
More than 250 GUSS machines have been deployed globally, having sprayed more than 2.6 million acres over 500,000 autonomous hours of operation.
Electrek’s Take
Population growth, while slowing, is still very much a thing – and fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to do the work of growing the food that more and more people need to eat and live. This autonomous tech multiplies the efforts of the farmers that do show up for work every day, and the fact that it’s more sustainable from both a fuel perspective and a toxic chemical perspective makes GUSS a winner.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Lawyers for Tesla filed a motion asking a court to throw out a recent $243 million verdict against the company related to a fatal crash in Florida in 2019. The case is the first instance of Tesla being ruled against by a court in an Autopilot liability case – previous cases had ended up settled out of court.
To catch up, the case in question is the $243 million Autopilot wrongful death case which concluded early this month. It was the first actual trial verdict against the company in an Autopilot wrongful death case – not counting previous out-of-court settlements.
The case centered around a 2019 crash of a Model S in Florida, where the driver dropped his phone and while he was picking it up, the Model S drove through a stop sign at a T-intersection, crashing into a parked Chevy Tahoe which then struck two pedestrians, killing one and seriously injuring the other.
Tesla was also caught withholding data in the case, which is not a good look.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
In the end, for the purposes of compensatory damages, the driver was found 67% responsible and Tesla was found 33% responsible. But Tesla was also slapped with $200 million in punitive damages. The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the driver separately.
Tesla said at the time that it planned to appeal the case, and its first move in that respect happened today, with lawyers for Tesla filing a 71-page motion laying out the problems they had with the trial.
In it, Tesla requests either that the previous verdict be thrown out, that the amount of damages be reduced or eliminated, or that the case go to a new trial, based on what Tesla contends were numerous errors of law during the trial.
The table of contents of Tesla’s filing lays out the company’s rough arguments for why it’s requesting the verdict to be thrown out, with Tesla seeming to throw several arguments at the wall to see what sticks:
I. Tesla Is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law (or at Least a New Trial) on Liability.
A. The Verdict Is Unsupported by Reliable Expert Evidence.
B. Plaintiffs’ Design-Defect Theories Fail as a Matter of Law.
1. Tesla’s 2019 Model S Was Not Defective.
2. McGee Was the Sole Cause of Plaintiffs’ Injuries.
C. The Failure-to-Warn Claim Fails as a Matter of Law.
1. Tesla Had No Duty to Warn.
2. Tesla Provided Extensive Warnings.
3. The Asserted Failure to Warn Didn’t Cause the Crash.
D. Tesla Is Entitled to a New Trial If the Record Cannot Sustain the Verdict as to Any Theory on Which the Jury Was Instructed.
II. Highly Prejudicial Evidentiary Errors Warrant a New Trial on All Issues.
A. The Improper Admission of Data-Related Evidence Prejudiced Tesla.
B. The Improper Admission of Elon Musk’s Statements Prejudiced Tesla.
C. The Improper Admission of Dissimilar Accidents Prejudiced Tesla.
III. This Court Should Grant Tesla Judgment as a Matter of Law on Punitive Damages or at Least Significantly Reduce Punitive Damages.
A. Florida Law Prohibits the Imposition of Any Punitive Damages in This Case.
B. Florida Law Caps Punitive Damages at Three Times the Compensatory Damages Actually Awarded Against Tesla.
C. The Due Process Clause Limits Punitive Damages Here to No More Than the Net Award of Compensatory Damages.
1. Tesla’s Conduct Was Not Reprehensible.
2. A Substantial Disparity Exists Between the $200 Million Award of Punitive Damages and the $42.3 Million Award of Compensatory Damages.
3. Comparable Civil Penalties Do Not Justify the Punitive-Damages Award.
IV. This Court Should Reduce the Grossly Excessive Award of Compensatory Damages to No More Than $69 Million.
In short, Tesla blames the driver (who was found 67% liable) fully for the crash, says that the Model S and its Autopilot system were state-of-the-art and not defective because “no car in the world at the time” could have avoided the accident, that it provided proper warnings even though it didn’t need to, that evidence was improperly admitted to prejudice the jury against Tesla, and that the punitive damages are excessive.
After looking through the document, Tesla’s main contention seems to be with the admission of various evidence that it says prejudiced the jury against Tesla.
Indeed, the only exhibit attached to the filing is a transcript of a podcast episode where one of plaintiffs’ experts talks about evidence that Tesla withheld data, which Tesla says should have been inadmissible and prejudiced the jury against it.
Tesla says that the only reason these arguments were brought into court was to make the jury feel like there was a coverup, even though Tesla claims that there was no coverup. By repeatedly mentioning this, Tesla says the jury had a more negative view of the company than was fair.
It also says that Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s statements about Autopilot shouldn’t have been admissible, and that they prejudiced the jury against Tesla. Tesla says that the statements by Musk shown at the trial were irrelevant to plaintiffs’ case, exceeded the limits the court had set on which statements would be admissible, and that the admission of these statements “would disincentivize companies from making visionary projections about anticipated technological breakthroughs.”
Update: After this story was published, plaintiffs’ attorneys reached out with their own statement
“This motion is the latest example of Tesla and Musk’s complete disregard for the human cost of their defective technology. The jury heard all the facts and came to the right conclusion that this was a case of shared responsibility, but that does not discount the integral role Autopilot and the company’s misrepresentations of its capabilities played in the crash that killed Naibel and permanently injured Dillon. We are confident the court will uphold this verdict, which serves not as an indictment of the autonomous vehicle industry, but of Tesla’s reckless and unsafe development and deployment of its Autopilot system.”
–Brett Schreiber of Singleton Schreiber, lead trial counsel for plaintiffs Dillon Angulo & Naibel Benavides.
Electrek’s Take
Reading through the filing is persuasive at first, but remember that this is only one side of the story – and Tesla is well-known for never budging an inch in legal or reputational matters. (Update: for a quick reaction from “the other side,” see the statement by plaintiffs’ attorneys directly above).
Thinking a little deeper, the filing does rely on a similar “puffery” argument which Tesla has used before. The idea here is that Musk’s statements should be ignored because he, as the CEO of the company, has an incentive (and well-known tendency) to overstate the capabilities of its vehicles.
Lawyers did not use that exact word here, but they do claim that Musk’s statements are “forward-looking” and “visionary.”
But, for a guy who talks so much that he wasted $44 billion on a $12 billion social media site (twice) so that he could force his words in front of every user every day, denying that his words have an effect is a strange legal argument.
Indeed, Tesla has a history of not doing paid advertisements in traditional media, and has relied on Musk, and specifically Musk’s twitter account, to be the company’s impromptu communications platform. Musk even closed the company’s PR department, instead taking on the full burden of that himself.
So to argue that Musk’s statements shouldn’t be admissible, or that they didn’t set the tone for the organization, is more than a little silly.
While Tesla and Musk did state many times that Autopilot was not full self-driving (although, neither was the feature they marketed under the name, ahem, “Full Self-Driving”), the balance of Musk’s statements describing Tesla’s features definitely could have led a driver to think that the vehicles were more capable than any other vehicle on the road.
This is why it’s strange that Tesla also argues that “no other car” could have stopped in the situation of the crash. If your company is constantly claiming that you have the best, safest, most autonomy-enabled vehicle in the world (including in this filing, where it is referred to as “state of the art”), then who cares whether other cars could have done it or not? We’re talking about your car, not anything else.
Further, Tesla said that admitting these statements will put a chilling effect on every corporation’s ability to project anticipated breakthroughs in tech. To this I say, frankly: good. Enough with the nonsense, lets focus on reality, and lets stop excusing lies as corporate puffery, across all industries.
But this is an example of Tesla trying to have it both ways, to pretend that Musk’s statements are just puffery but also that they are important to breakthroughs and that silencing Musk would harm the company. Yes, it probably would harm Tesla’s outreach – because Musk’s statements are roughly the only source of Tesla’s advertising, which is why they ought to be heard to establish what the public thinks about the capabilities of Teslas.
And while Tesla says that cases like these would “chill” development of safety features if manufacturers are punished for bringing them to market, the punishment here isn’t for bringing the feature to market, it’s for overselling the feature in a way that set public expectations too high. Other features have not received this sort of scrutiny because other features don’t get pumped up daily with ridiculous overstatements by the company’s sole source of advertising.
On the other points, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not up to date on the specific limits to punitive damages in Florida. But on the surface, it seems fair to me that if a company was found to withhold data in an important case, after declining a settlement, that some level of significant punishment is fair.
After all, withholding data in a single non-fatal crash that wasn’t even their fault is what led Cruise to shut down operations everywhere. That may have been an overreaction and would certainly be an overreaction in this case with Tesla, given the driver’s responsibility for the crash. But in this case, the damage done to people (a death) was greater, and the damages Tesla is being told to pay ($243 million) will not lead to a shutdown of the entire company. Especially considering this is the same company that just managed to find tens of billions of dollars to give to a bad CEO.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.