Ford F-150 Lightning Home Integration System Pricing

[RandyS]

https://insideevs.com/news/583042/f150-lightning-home-integration-system-pricing/?adv=0

Looks like Ford has announced the pricing for their F-150 Lightning Home Integration System. This is a home backup power supply system that will deliver 9.6 kW to the home from the truck.

First, you would need the 80 amp charging station (free with the F-150 that has the optional Extended Range battery pack, $1,310 if you only have the Standard battery pack).

Second, you would also need the Home Integration System, which is priced at $3,895 PLUS INSTALLATION COSTS. The H.I.S. consists of an inverter, a transfer switch, and a small battery to power the system temporarily when the main power goes out.

My intuition tells me that Tesla is working on something similar for the Cyber Truck, since they wouldn't want to get left behind by Ford in the features department (and Ford has announced this feature previously).

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 5322]

https://insideevs.com/news/583042/f150-lightning-home-integration-system-pricing/?adv=0

Looks like Ford has announced the pricing for their F-150 Lightning Home Integration System. This is a home backup power supply system that will deliver 9.6 kW to the home from the truck.

First, you would need the 80 amp charging station (free with the F-150 that has the optional Extended Range battery pack, $1,310 if you only have the Standard battery pack).

Second, you would also need the Home Integration System, which is priced at $3,895 PLUS INSTALLATION COSTS. The H.I.S. consists of an inverter, a transfer switch, and a small battery to power the system temporarily when the main power goes out.

My intuition tells me that Tesla is working on something similar for the Cyber Truck, since they wouldn't want to get left behind by Ford in the features department (and Ford has announced this feature previously).

It is still cheaper than a tesla wall

 

[JBee]

What I would like to see is a more unified approach to this type of technology where any EV can interface with your house and grid using the same interfaces and cabling , for example through a V2G, V2H and even V2V.

Any type of EV charger can be made so it's bidirectional without adding significant cost, complexity or safety gear. As such having a EV that can charge from home should also allow for power to be supplied to the home from the EV battery.

The main issue with making EV's do this is not the EV itself, rather it is on the house integration side, in particular how the house is connected to the electrical network. This is because it is critical, that the system has protections for various fault conditions, including not exporting power whilst there is a grid failure.

These are features that are already embedded with grid connected solar inverters and ideally these features will be implemented through new wiring standards that will support V2X functionality.

Hopefully, Tesla comes up with a solution that that not only easily integrates in households accross the planet, but also does so affordably. Specifically for CT though, I really would like to see a PV input on the truck to allow it to recieve DC voltages for off-grid charging.

My position on battery cycling on V2X is simply that at some point the value generated for transporting goods or people will at some point be equal to using that energy for household use. This is predominantly because the price of batteries is getting lower and their overall performance, including cycles, are improving with every iteration.

 

[GnarlyDudeLive]

My position on battery cycling on V2X is simply that at some point the value generated for transporting goods or people will at some point be equal to using that energy for household use. This is predominantly because the price of batteries is getting lower and their overall performance, including cycles, are improving with every iteration.

I agree on pretty much all points. My beliefs personally, if you are not using the CT (or any EV for that matter) as a backup for every night usage due to time of day rates and only using it for actual power outages, the extra cycles it puts on an EV should be rather minimal as just a backup battery for your home. I know regions vary on the quality of their grid, but honestly, if used for backup only, would it really generate more than 5 extra cycles on the battery pack a year? For me it would maybe equate to an extra 1 cycle per year. BUT, I would really like to have that power to my home when it does go out occasionally.

 

[JBee]

I agree on pretty much all points. My beliefs personally, if you are not using the CT (or any EV for that matter) as a backup for every night usage due to time of day rates and only using it for actual power outages, the extra cycles it puts on an EV should be rather minimal as just a backup battery for your home. I know regions vary on the quality of their grid, but honestly, if used for backup only, would it really generate more than 5 extra cycles on the battery pack a year? For me it would maybe equate to an extra 1 cycle per year. BUT, I would really like to have that power to my home when it does go out occasionally.

I think there are two different levels at which looking at V2X makes sense. One is as you would like to have, as a backup on network failure, but I see it also as an enabler for more renewable power.

There's this thing called "network curtailment" which is actually becoming a major factor in networks now with high percentages of embedded househild solar, along with a range of other network limits.
The problem occurs when a whole suburb has a mild weather day, so no heating or cooling loads are required, but their solar produces at full output, with nowhere for that power to go. This leads to the solar inverters seeing a network voltage rise, which in turn means the inverter needs to regulate and reduce the output voltage to not exceed the grid voltage, which could result in the inverter tripping off or even the grid tripping off.

This voltage regulation means that not all the available solar can be exported to the grid. This is essentially unavoidable to keep the network stable, and is caused be the limitation of being able to move power out of one or a few suburbs to somewhere else that aren't in the same area, weather and network state. Using embedded storage is a solution, like Powerwalls, but they only have limited capacity for storage and add a premium cost over a EV, that you might already have or want, and has more than enough battery capacity but lacks the ability to connect via V2G.

The other component is that as more storage is available in EV batteries, theres is actually a substantial capacity to not only buffer the network, but also to distribute power as well. At first this might sound ridiculous, to drive energy around in EVs to distribute it, but consider that the current ICE vehicle fleet has some 20-30x the energy conversion capacity of the electricity grid. That means that even if only 5% of those vehicles would be connected to the grid when parked, it could buffer the entire grid. That presents a huge resource that will remain underutilised without using V2G, given that most cars spend their lives parked and not driving at all.

The other issue is that with EVs becoming mainstream is that the situation will get worse and not better with network loading, with at least 2 to 3 times the amount of energy required from the networks (according to EM). Without connecting EV's to buffer means that networks need to factor in even more peak loading and cost. Overall this results in a detrimental network progression where infrastructure is under utilised and costs more as well as EV adoption increases. V2G becomes a natural remedy for this causation by artificially increasing network peak capacity where ever V2G is used, using no additional resources except the right V2G connection.

The effect in rural areas is even more pronounced simply because in those areas networks are not at all profitable and are subsidized by fees charged in suburbia and industry.

As for battery cycling, with 5% of EVs connected to the grid, representing 100% of grid capacity, you end up with a network that, as is, can support all peak load demand, and buffer significant expansion towards 100% renewable supply as well. Imagine if you have 10-20% of EVs connected (if there was no more ICE). At that point cycling will only represent a insignificant few percentages of battery capacity every so often, simply because of the shear mass of EVs online at the same time.

Hence my view that V2X tech should be used more and be adopted by all EV manufacturers and actively promoted by network providers as well.

 

[Sirfun]

I think there are two different levels at which looking at V2X makes sense. One is as you would like to have, as a backup on network failure, but I see it also as an enabler for more renewable power.

There's this thing called "network curtailment" which is actually becoming a major factor in networks now with high percentages of embedded househild solar, along with a range of other network limits.
The problem occurs when a whole suburb has a mild weather day, so no heating or cooling loads are required, but their solar produces at full output, with nowhere for that power to go. This leads to the solar inverters seeing a network voltage rise, which in turn means the inverter needs to regulate and reduce the output voltage to not exceed the grid voltage, which could result in the inverter tripping off or even the grid tripping off.

This voltage regulation means that not all the available solar can be exported to the grid. This is essentially unavoidable to keep the network stable, and is caused be the limitation of being able to move power out of one or a few suburbs to somewhere else that aren't in the same area, weather and network state. Using embedded storage is a solution, like Powerwalls, but they only have limited capacity for storage and add a premium cost over a EV, that you might already have or want, and has more than enough battery capacity but lacks the ability to connect via V2G.

The other component is that as more storage is available in EV batteries, theres is actually a substantial capacity to not only buffer the network, but also to distribute power as well. At first this might sound ridiculous, to drive energy around in EVs to distribute it, but consider that the current ICE vehicle fleet has some 20-30x the energy conversion capacity of the electricity grid. That means that even if only 5% of those vehicles would be connected to the grid when parked, it could buffer the entire grid. That presents a huge resource that will remain underutilised without using V2G, given that most cars spend their lives parked and not driving at all.

The other issue is that with EVs becoming mainstream is that the situation will get worse and not better with network loading, with at least 2 to 3 times the amount of energy required from the networks (according to EM). Without connecting EV's to buffer means that networks need to factor in even more peak loading and cost. Overall this results in a detrimental network progression where infrastructure is under utilised and costs more as well as EV adoption increases. V2G becomes a natural remedy for this causation by artificially increasing network peak capacity where ever V2G is used, using no additional resources except the right V2G connection.

The effect in rural areas is even more pronounced simply because in those areas networks are not at all profitable and are subsidized by fees charged in suburbia and industry.

As for battery cycling, with 5% of EVs connected to the grid, representing 100% of grid capacity, you end up with a network that as is can support all peak load demand, and buffer significant expansion towards 100% renewable supply as well. Imagine if you have 10-20% of EVs connected (if there was no more ICE). At that point cycling will only represent a insignificant few percentages of battery capacity every so often, simply because of the shear mass of EVs online at the same time.

Hence my view that V2X tech should be used more and be adopted by all EV manufacturers and actively promoted by network providers as well.

Wouldn't it also give people more incentive to have solar? One issue, a lot of people (including myself) have with installing solar, is that we don't want to get our power turned off when the grid goes down. But the price of Powerwalls with small battery storage, compared to a Cybertruck is very expensive. If I can add my Cybertruck to one powerwall. A system would make way more sense.

 

[JBee]

Wouldn't it also give people more incentive to have solar? One issue, a lot of people (including myself) have with installing solar, is that we don't want to get our power turned off when the grid goes down. But the price of Powerwalls with small battery storage, compared to a Cybertruck is very expensive. If I can add my Cybertruck to one powerwall. A system would make way more sense.

Well you don't even need a Powerwall at all. All you need is the islanding protection unit that disconnects your house from the grid, and then use a bidirectional EV charger to supply your house. This will work without solar as well.

If you have solar and are normally connected to the grid with it, normally that means you have a inverter that connects to the grid and synchonises to the grid frequency to export power. Without the grid you normally can't use those types of pv inverters, but you can if you can phase sync it to the EV output instead. The limitation there is that you need to modulate the amount of power it takes from the solar to charge your EV and your household consumption as well, so that it doesn't exceedd available solar power. With a control system in place you can then use your EV as a large Powerwall instead. All you need is a grid isolator, bidirectional EV charger and a small network enabled control system that can communicate with the EV to change its charge/discharge rate in real time, and with a power monitor to make sure everything is within limits.

 

[nadreggid]

What I would like to see is a more unified approach to this type of technology where any EV can interface with your house and grid using the same interfaces and cabling , for example through a V2G, V2H and even V2V.

Any type of EV charger can be made so it's bidirectional without adding significant cost, complexity or safety gear. As such having a EV that can charge from home should also allow for power to be supplied to the home from the EV battery.

The main issue with making EV's do this is not the EV itself, rather it is on the house integration side, in particular how the house is connected to the electrical network. This is because it is critical, that the system has protections for various fault conditions, including not exporting power whilst there is a grid failure.

These are features that are already embedded with grid connected solar inverters and ideally these features will be implemented through new wiring standards that will support V2X functionality.

Hopefully, Tesla comes up with a solution that that not only easily integrates in households accross the planet, but also does so affordably. Specifically for CT though, I really would like to see a PV input on the truck to allow it to recieve DC voltages for off-grid charging.

My position on battery cycling on V2X is simply that at some point the value generated for transporting goods or people will at some point be equal to using that energy for household use. This is predominantly because the price of batteries is getting lower and their overall performance, including cycles, are improving with every iteration.

YES! It would be great to plug DC from charge controllers direct.

Sponsored