for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: Tesla Solar Roofing cheaper than regular roof

giantfan2000 : 5/10/2017 2:57 pm
Tesla says that the “typical homeowner can expect to pay $21.85 per square foot for a Solar Roof

pretty incredible



this could be a game changer in terms of solar adaption
since about 5 million roofs a year get replaced in US& gt;
Tesla releases details of its solar roof tiles: cheaper than regular roof with ‘infinity warranty’ and 30 yrs of solar power - ( New Window )
I guarantee those numbers  
BigBlueDownTheShore : 5/10/2017 3:02 pm : link
are created with the energy savings built into them. So the actual cost per square inch per roof shingle is actually higher then what is advertised.
RE: I guarantee those numbers  
lawguy9801 : 5/10/2017 3:04 pm : link
In comment 13468045 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
are created with the energy savings built into them. So the actual cost per square inch per roof shingle is actually higher then what is advertised.


We have a winner
RE: RE: I guarantee those numbers  
732NYG : 5/10/2017 3:07 pm : link
In comment 13468055 lawguy9801 said:
Quote:
In comment 13468045 BigBlueDownTheShore said:


Quote:


are created with the energy savings built into them. So the actual cost per square inch per roof shingle is actually higher then what is advertised.



We have a winner


Wouldn't that be represented by the bar on top?
3 added factors to consider  
njm : 5/10/2017 3:09 pm : link
1. Beyond the battery, and connection costs hooking into the house's electrical system.

2. Time value of money. Not a big factor currently, but would become more important if interest rates rise.

3. Tax credits are necessary to make this appealing

It seems to be, however, an improvement in cost/benefit.
RE: I guarantee those numbers  
KeoweeFan : 5/10/2017 3:16 pm : link
In comment 13468045 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
are created with the energy savings built into them. So the actual cost per square inch per roof shingle is actually higher then what is advertised.

BINGO!
Note the chart says solar "with value of energy".
- Not every home is suitable for solar.
- Tesla depends on government subsidies (meaning you and I are chipping in) and I bet this is no different.
- It also sounds like the batteries (absolutely required if solar is to be useful) are NOT included in the analysis for the shingles: (they are somewhat ambiguous in the writeup.)
"They are including an installed Powerwall 2 in the quotes. It can be removed, but Tesla believes that most people will want to have the home battery pack."
As with most things  
Beer Man : 5/10/2017 3:32 pm : link
always do your research, and never trust the word of a person/company who is trying to separate you from your hard earned money
The one thing that I wonder about is the cost  
Section331 : 5/10/2017 3:34 pm : link
of installation. It's not like any roofing guy is going to be able to do this, I would think (hope!) that it would be an electrician. That would bring the cost up exponentially.

I think the solar panels are a great idea personally, but I would need to see overall costs, including installation, before considering it.
...  
giants#1 : 5/10/2017 3:57 pm : link
Read the legend on the plot in the OP. The 3rd item down is 'Solar Roof non-solar Tile'. If you read the article, it describes a typical roof having 40% solar producing tiles and the rest non-solar tiles that look visually identical. I believe the 3rd bar is the cost of these non-energy producing tiles and the top blue bar is what the energy producing tiles would cost when accounting for the energy produced (and whatever assumptions are used there...).

Quote:
The company estimates that its non-solar tiles are cheaper than regular tiles and its solar tiles are cheaper than anything else, but only when accounting for energy generation (actual cost of solar tiles is $42/sq-ft):


Also note that "regular" tiles are tile/metal/slate, not asphalt which is fairly common in the northeast (and midwest by me).

Finally, a quick search on home depot shows that asphalt shingles are <$1 per square foot so I'm not really sure where the $5 per sq foot number comes from. Even with installation, I see asphalt roofs for <$4 per sq foot:

Asphalt Estimate

Home Depot - ( New Window )
That's the cost if you buy your asphalt shingles  
jcn56 : 5/10/2017 4:33 pm : link
at a strip club.
Won't be an early adopter...  
Southern Man : 5/10/2017 4:37 pm : link
but glad someone is out there exploring the market potential for renewable energy. I'm sure Musk is not everyone's cup of tea, but I admire his ambition.
I don't have anything against Musk or solar  
jcn56 : 5/10/2017 4:59 pm : link
but man, that is one sleazy field right now.

I've been trying to get residential solar for my home for some time. The fine print and sleazy sales pitches you get are worse than anything I've ever experienced. Getting straight answers and real numbers out of these people is nearly impossible.
RE: That's the cost if you buy your asphalt shingles  
Deej : 5/10/2017 5:08 pm : link
In comment 13468229 jcn56 said:
Quote:
at a strip club.


I got shingles at a strip club, but that was something else entirely.
2 things  
Deej : 5/10/2017 5:13 pm : link
1. I think just about all energy/power is subsidized in some form. Solar may receive the most direct subsidies. But below market leases/rights is a subsidy. Use of eminent domain for pipeline rights is a subsidy. Access to streets etc. is a subsidy. And if you really think about it, untaxed pollution is a subsidy (albeit not directly from a fisc).

2. Im no expert, but isnt it likely that solar would be a lot more efficient in farms? One amazing solar farm instead of static panels on thousands of roofs? Maybe in sunnier locals? Home solar strikes me as inefficient. You could replace it with co-ops if people really want to own the means of production.
RE: 2 things  
giants#1 : 5/10/2017 5:26 pm : link
In comment 13468293 Deej said:
Quote:
1. I think just about all energy/power is subsidized in some form. Solar may receive the most direct subsidies. But below market leases/rights is a subsidy. Use of eminent domain for pipeline rights is a subsidy. Access to streets etc. is a subsidy. And if you really think about it, untaxed pollution is a subsidy (albeit not directly from a fisc).

2. Im no expert, but isnt it likely that solar would be a lot more efficient in farms? One amazing solar farm instead of static panels on thousands of roofs? Maybe in sunnier locals? Home solar strikes me as inefficient. You could replace it with co-ops if people really want to own the means of production.


I believe SoCal and Arizona habe drone large solar farms. Haven't looked at the specifics recently but I think the area required and the minimal amounts of cloud coverrequired make it a difficult proposition. Plus our energy grid sucks and would need major upgrades to handle large scale solar.
high end roofing  
giantfan2000 : 5/10/2017 5:28 pm : link
i don't think this is meant to compete with asphalt roofing
but high end shale or clay this is definitely within the ball park..

I would imagine any higher end new home construction is going to have these roofs

Also I would imagine with innovation and competition a solar roof cost will be going down a lot in the next few years .
.
5 million roofs get replaced each year in US .. i would imagine with 5 years a high percentage will be solar roofs

RE: Won't be an early adopter...  
giants#1 : 5/10/2017 5:29 pm : link
In comment 13468239 Southern Man said:
Quote:
but glad someone is out there exploring the market potential for renewable energy. I'm sure Musk is not everyone's cup of tea, but I admire his ambition.


Love the idea of solar and would do it in a second if it was economical or even close, but
1. Hate sleazy salesman that grossly exaggerate (our flat out misstate) the benefits
2. Not a fan of subsidizing 1%ers with my tax dollars (TSLA auto more than solar). Doubt the $7500 saved on a $100k car is the reason they're buying them and fat Beyer uses of that money even if directed to clean energy.
I have  
ctc in ftmyers : 5/10/2017 10:53 pm : link
~ 3,000 sq' roof. That's over $65,000 dollars.

That is nuts?
Anything that may help us  
mrvax : 5/10/2017 10:59 pm : link
get away from mid-east oil, even a little here and there gets the thumbs up from me.
We are away  
ctc in ftmyers : 5/10/2017 11:06 pm : link
from the mid east oil. That problem has been solved unless you haven't been looking at gas prices lately and the price of crude with the resources being tapped in the US.
Solar panel companies are very poorly managed  
Jimmy Googs : 5/11/2017 3:35 am : link
with many bankruptcies and liquidations.

Customers left holding the baggage on lost deposits, un-finished installs and worthless warrranties.

Do your diligence...
Not only is the energy savings factored in.  
EricJ : 5/11/2017 7:23 am : link
but they are probably adding in all of the savings during the course of the life of the shingles.
RE: Anything that may help us  
Jim in Fairfax : 5/11/2017 8:08 am : link
In comment 13468519 mrvax said:
Quote:
get away from mid-east oil, even a little here and there gets the thumbs up from me.

Even if installations happen in large numbers, it will have little to no effect on oil consumption. The US uses practically no oil to generate electricity.

RE: Anything that may help us  
njm : 5/11/2017 8:23 am : link
In comment 13468519 mrvax said:
Quote:
get away from mid-east oil, even a little here and there gets the thumbs up from me.


There are a lot of alternatives available to achieve that, but without a cost benefit analysis and decisions made on the results the cure can be worse than the disease. Solar may be cost effective in some, even many, instances. But not all, and this headlong rush with solar being sort of the flavor of the month can lead to bad results.
It's another one of those topics that's simpler than you'd think.  
jcn56 : 5/11/2017 9:06 am : link
Solar is good - way better than coal.

Solar's not perfect, and it's certainly not going to save you a ton of money.

Solar's going to make strides over the next decade based on the adoption rate globally, so whatever you put in now is likely to be obsoleted long before end of life.

I'm OK with all of it. But like anything else, with free gubment dollars on the floor, there's a mad scramble between many parties, some less scrupulous than others, and it's hard to differentiate what's truth from what's noise. Those government subsidies and handouts apply to all forms of energy, though (which is why we're still stupidly burning ethanol), so there's no sense in getting bent out of shape or political over it.
RE: high end roofing  
Greg from LI : 5/11/2017 9:22 am : link
In comment 13468306 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:
i don't think this is meant to compete with asphalt roofing
but high end shale or clay this is definitely within the ball park..

I would imagine any higher end new home construction is going to have these roofs

Also I would imagine with innovation and competition a solar roof cost will be going down a lot in the next few years .
.
5 million roofs get replaced each year in US .. i would imagine with 5 years a high percentage will be solar roofs


Wait....so it's designed to compete with high-end roofing that constitutes a small percentage of the roofs in this country, yet somehow within five years a high percentage will be solar roofs? How does that work, exactly?

Never stop uncritically parroting Elon Musk press releases. I can always use a chuckle.
the problem is that it is NOT  
fkap : 5/11/2017 9:27 am : link
simple.

Solar is not pollution free. You still have to mine the material, produce it, and dispose of it in the end. Silicon (currently the baseline) is the simplest, but far from pollution free. the future of solar is in alternative materials and some of them are nasty shit.

The tax subsidization is not simple. EVERY form of energy is subsidized to some extent. figuring out where, or what, the subsidies are is a complex task.

accounting is not black and white. Math is straight forward. determining what should be entered into the equation is very, very subjective.

Just saying coal is bad is misleading. There are a lot of measures that can be taken to make it quite safe. whether we'll take those measures must be compared to whether we'll take those measures with solar.

I believe in solar, and alternative energies. they should be the source of our ever increasing electricity consumption. but it is NOT a simple situation.
No, what you're mentioning ISN'T complicated  
jcn56 : 5/11/2017 9:32 am : link
Of course there are carbon emission concerns with the production of solar panels. Nobody claims that there aren't, or that this is some wonderful, zero impact all green solution.

It's just a shit ton better than most of the other alternatives. Given the choice, we're still better off building more hydroelectric dams, harnessing tidal and wind energy, etc.
it's funny how  
Deej : 5/11/2017 9:53 am : link
people attack solar for not being PERFECT while comparing it to carbon fuel, ignoring so much of the problem with the status quo.

That's Grade A PR work from the status quo. Getting people to insist on perfect solutions is a classic way to prevent progress.
It's interesting how manypeople  
Ron Johnson 30 : 5/11/2017 9:57 am : link
push back so hard on anything that should be seen as progress in green energy. Green energy isn't the enemy, fossil fuels are.
RE: it's funny how  
njm : 5/11/2017 10:04 am : link
In comment 13468726 Deej said:
Quote:
people attack solar for not being PERFECT while comparing it to carbon fuel, ignoring so much of the problem with the status quo.

That's Grade A PR work from the status quo. Getting people to insist on perfect solutions is a classic way to prevent progress.


Cost benefit analysis does not seek nor demand perfection. And I don't see many people saying that solar isn't part of the solution, just that it shouldn't be a knee jerk answer without considering alternatives.
It's very true that you have to be careful about any entrepeneur  
Ira : 5/11/2017 10:08 am : link
making promises. But solar has been getting less expensive and will continue to get more and more cost effective. And Musk has a good track record.
RE: the problem is that it is NOT  
Jim in Fairfax : 5/11/2017 10:23 am : link
In comment 13468691 fkap said:
[quote
Just saying coal is bad is misleading. There are a lot of measures that can be taken to make it quite safe. whether we'll take those measures must be compared to whether we'll take those measures with solar.
. [/quote]
It's obvious that measures won't be taken. The coal industry has been trumpeting "clean coal" as something that's a real thing for decades, but somehow it's never implemented. Also, just recently a regulation that would have restricted miners ability to dump toxic coal waste in waterways was overturned after pressure from the industry.
Coal - reedit  
Jim in Fairfax : 5/11/2017 10:25 am : link
In comment 13468691 fkap said:
Quote:

Just saying coal is bad is misleading. There are a lot of measures that can be taken to make it quite safe. whether we'll take those measures must be compared to whether we'll take those measures with solar.
.

It's obvious that measures won't be taken. The coal industry has been trumpeting "clean coal" as something that's a real thing for decades, but somehow it's never implemented. Also, just recently a regulation that would have restricted miners ability to dump toxic coal waste in waterways was overturned after pressure from the industry.
RE: No, what you're mentioning ISN'T complicated  
njm : 5/11/2017 10:47 am : link
In comment 13468695 jcn56 said:
Quote:
we're still better off building more hydroelectric dams


Now you've done it, you heretic, you blasphemer!
Big Wind, I'm all in baby.  
jcn56 : 5/11/2017 11:10 am : link
.
Hah, and I somehow subconsciously typed wind instead of water  
jcn56 : 5/11/2017 11:11 am : link
probably because that's what most of these lobbying groups are, wind based...
how big a windmill do you need to power a house?  
giants#1 : 5/11/2017 11:13 am : link
why haven't personal windmills taken off?
RE: how big a windmill do you need to power a house?  
jcn56 : 5/11/2017 11:22 am : link
In comment 13468840 giants#1 said:
Quote:
why haven't personal windmills taken off?


Because wind turbines sound like, uh, turbines.

It's funny - I have a house in a seasonal beach community, and about 10 miles east there was a huge stink over a proposed wind turbine farm. You want to talk NIMBY, the concern here was that the turbines would ruin the sunset and make too much noise.

Considering they were planning on putting them miles offshore, they're either the loudest frikkin things on the planet or my neighbors have really sensitive hearing.
RE: RE: how big a windmill do you need to power a house?  
njm : 5/11/2017 11:27 am : link
In comment 13468851 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13468840 giants#1 said:


Quote:


why haven't personal windmills taken off?



Because wind turbines sound like, uh, turbines.

It's funny - I have a house in a seasonal beach community, and about 10 miles east there was a huge stink over a proposed wind turbine farm. You want to talk NIMBY, the concern here was that the turbines would ruin the sunset and make too much noise.

Considering they were planning on putting them miles offshore, they're either the loudest frikkin things on the planet or my neighbors have really sensitive hearing.


You have a place in Hyannisport?

BTW, the last I read (and it was a while back) personal windmills are rarely cost effective and that includes comparison to solar.
RE: how big a windmill do you need to power a house?  
Jim in Fairfax : 5/11/2017 11:28 am : link
In comment 13468840 giants#1 said:
Quote:
why haven't personal windmills taken off?

Taller and larger than most zoning ordinances would allow. And even if they were allowed, they'd never be worth the cost.

Also, winds are strongest overnight when most houses use little electricity.
Never listen to a sales person  
Beer Man : 5/19/2017 3:08 pm : link
or blindly trust what you read in marketing materials. When they tell you these roofs are cheaper, they are factoring in the energy savings you are projected to receive over time. But they are an expensive investment. According to Forbes the average home in the US is 2,467 sq. ft. According to Tesla's calculator that would cost $51,200 for 70% of the roof and another $7,000 for the Powerwall battery (probably over $60K after taxes). Three years ago, I had the roof replaced (on a 3,600 sq.ft home) with 50-year, dimensional shingles for $10,500. How many years of Energy Savings would it take to make up the difference? Most of these companies claim you will save 20% to 30% on your electric bill. I haven't done the calculations, but I will be long out of my home by the time the payback on that will be realized.
Back to the Corner