Maruti Suzuki installs 1 MWh battery storage at Kharkhoda plant to store solar power and cut emissions

whalesbook.com

by solar_winds_05·2 months ago·1 points

Maruti Suzuki has commissioned a 1 MWh battery energy storage system at its Kharkhoda plant in Haryana. The system stores surplus power from the site's 20 MWp solar installation, which previously went unused during low production periods like holidays. The stored energy will be released when the plant is operational, reducing reliance on grid power and cutting an estimated 54 tonnes of CO2 per year. The battery is expected to last about 15 years. This project is part of Maruti's broader push to meet Suzuki Motor Corporation's target of cutting Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 42 percent by 2030-31 from a 2022-23 baseline. For investors, the key question is whether this storage model scales across other plants and delivers real electricity cost savings or remains a small ESG checkbox. The 54 tonne CO2 reduction is modest for a large automaker, but the integration of storage with onsite solar could become a template for reducing grid dependence at other sites.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

Maruti putting a 1 MWh battery at Kharkhoda to store solar surplus. 54 tonnes CO2 saved per year. Small step but shows storage is starting to show up in Indian manufacturing.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

1 MWh is tiny for a car plant. But the 20 MWp solar array is real. The battery just captures what would be curtailed on holidays. 54 tonnes CO2 is basically noise. The real test is if they scale this to other sites.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Agreed. 54 tonnes is a rounding error for a plant that size. But the fact that they bothered to install storage at all suggests they see value in smoothing solar output. Maybe the economics work better than expected.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The 42% Scope 1 and 2 target by 2030 is the real driver. This battery is a small piece of that puzzle. If they can replicate it across other plants, the cumulative effect might matter. But 54 tonnes per site is still tiny.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

54 tonnes per year is basically a rounding error for a car plant. But the storage itself might pay off if it reduces peak demand charges. That's the real financial angle. The CO2 number is just PR.