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 )
We have a winner
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?
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.
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."
I think the solar panels are a great idea personally, but I would need to see overall costs, including installation, before considering it.
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 )
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.
I got shingles at a strip club, but that was something else entirely.
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.
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.
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
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.
That is nuts?
Customers left holding the baggage on lost deposits, un-finished installs and worthless warrranties.
Do your diligence...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's Grade A PR work from the status quo. Getting people to insist on perfect solutions is a classic way to prevent progress.
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.
[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.
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.
Now you've done it, you heretic, you blasphemer!
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.
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.
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.