Live data from Hacker News

Project Sunroof

google.com

201–210 of 233 posts

Re: Project Sunroof

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any gains from PV would be washed away by increased air conditioner usage. If you have a house in shade, be very happy.

Energy wise, I wish my lot were less shady. I spend 0kWh per year on AC (days over 90 are rare), but heating is another matter. Which reminds me. If anyone knows a good way to retrofit an house with no ducting and no natural gas for any form of efficient heating, let me know.

Any electric heater will be approximately 100% efficient, but electricity is generally much more expensive per unit energy than than natural gas or oil. If you have decided that electricity is your best option, you should compare convenience, installation cost, and whether you want to heat specific areas or the entire house.

Re: Project Sunroof

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy wise, I wish my lot were less shady. I spend 0kWh per year on AC (days over 90 are rare), but heating is another matter. Which reminds me. If anyone knows a good way to retrofit an house with no ducting and no natural gas for any form of efficient heating, let me know.

Any electric heater will be approximately 100% efficient, but electricity is generally much more expensive per unit energy than than natural gas or oil. If you have decided that electricity is your best option, you should compare convenience, installation cost, and whether you want to heat specific areas or the entire house.

However, there's a big difference between electric resistive heating (generating heat) versus electric heat pumps (moving heat around.) The latter can be 3x or more efficient than the former.

Re: Project Sunroof

#203
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find it a bit dishonest sounding when these things are referred to as producing a "savings". Solar on a residential rooftop is not financially sustainable when you consider the cost of capital and require a market ROI. So I assume that lessors in this case are receiving a non-trivial government subsidy. Which means, in the end, that whatever the lessee is "saving" and then some is being paid in additional ta…

This was true several years ago, but the cost of solar has come down substantially even without considering tax subsidies, and is continuing to decrease at a healthy rate. For example, Sunroof estimates that a 5.75kWh system would cost $21,500 before subsidies (about $15k after, but we're ignoring that), and that it will save you (gross) $60,000 over 20 years in utility bill costs. You can either: a) Invest that capi…

I wish "who pays for the system" and "where the system is installed" are decoupled, via a market that lets investors finance the system and the installation and own the resulting energy, and house owners or other sites that merely provide a place to install the panels in return for $x worth of free energy every month. If you're a house owner, you'll bid on the X, or different energy companies could make you offers, and you'd pick one that you like. If you're an investor, you'd presumably choose the site that gives you the greatest ROI — the most sunlight, the highest grid prices, and the least rent to be paid to the house owner (x above).

This addresses your point about upgrading. You can install the newer system on another roof, without incurring cost of removing the older system, and generate power (and therefore income) from both panels at once. As long as the older system is generating more power than its annual maintenance cost, it doesn't make economic sense to dismantle it.

Decoupling also means that if you decide to invest in solar energy, you can have it installed in whichever part of the world (or at least your country) gives the greatest ROI: the most sunlight, and the highest electricity tariffs. Maybe you live in a rented house or an apartment where you can't install solar panels. Giving a higher return will encourage more people to invest in solar.

Other advantages of decoupling will be the ability to invest the amount you want, whether $1000 or $100K, rather than the price of one solar system, the ability to make additional investments if you have more money later on, and the ability to liquidate an investment any time you need the money, or in a financial emergency. People will also be able to dip their toes into this market with a small investment, and see how it performs, before making a larger investment.

Re: Project Sunroof

#204
post #60

I live in San Francisco and just had a solar system installed last week, so I have a few comments about this. 1) It vastly overestimated how big a solar system that could fit on my roof (by about 5x). It didn't care about chimneys or skylights (which are easily visible through Google maps), nor SF fire code which states that you need a 3-foot empty pathway on both sides of the crest of your roof [1]. So for almost ev…

Did you choose to lease, loan or buy? Would be interested in knowing the factors driving your decision.

Re: Project Sunroof

#205

Can anyone with more knowledge of solar technology speak to this? I know nothing about solar technology developments. I am interested in adding solar to my house some day, but concerned about spending a lot of money today for solar panels that will either (a) be much cheaper in 5-10 years, or (b) be replaced by much more effective panels in 5-10 years. Assuming that the economics of it are the only motivation for goi…

My personal take is to minimize the amount of temperature variance over time so I'd invest time and money in insulation, weather stripping, other upgrades first as well as reducing my electrical usage in general.

Right now, I'm at a point where I need to use a FLIR to investigate more improvements after which will I then think about solar but it's nice to read up on solar improvements.

Re: Project Sunroof

#206
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hasn't reached most of the US either... Give it some time!

In most of Europe, the website just returns 404. This is like... the worst link ever. I’d prefer if a mod would replace the URL with a link to either the About page or the video. Or to an archive.org cache of the site. Linking to a site that 404's for almost everyone is inacceptable.

in Asia 404 as well

Re: Project Sunroof

#207
post #178

Why are so many people in the USA live in individual houses rather than condominiums (apartments)? The latter is just so much more economical.

Because it's more pleasant and we have the space and money.

If you want more economical, why not just have everyone live in barracks?

Re: Project Sunroof

#208
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the data is already public, surely making it more widely available devalues it as a means of control or coercion? You can blackmail me if you know something no one else does. You can't if you know something everyone else does. Services like this fix asymmetric access to information. They're not revealing anything new.

Normal citizens do not have the ability to perform data-fusion like Google or a Government Agency. Services like Sunroof give just a tiny window into what they know about you. Hardly anything could be more asymmetric. I believe the potential for abuse exists. Everything is fine now (here in California). But when the next crisis comes, data-fusion can be a powerful tool for authoritarians to control their opponents an…

> Normal citizens do not have the ability to perform data-fusion like Google or a Government Agency. Services like Sunroof give just a tiny window into what they know about you. Hardly anything could be more asymmetric.

If you're a normal citizen who has technical skills, yes, you can do exactly the same data extrapolation with publicly available datasources.

Re: Project Sunroof

#209
post #60

I live in San Francisco and just had a solar system installed last week, so I have a few comments about this. 1) It vastly overestimated how big a solar system that could fit on my roof (by about 5x). It didn't care about chimneys or skylights (which are easily visible through Google maps), nor SF fire code which states that you need a 3-foot empty pathway on both sides of the crest of your roof [1]. So for almost ev…

I always find it a bit dishonest sounding when these things are referred to as producing a "savings". Solar on a residential rooftop is not financially sustainable when you consider the cost of capital and require a market ROI. So I assume that lessors in this case are receiving a non-trivial government subsidy. Which means, in the end, that whatever the lessee is "saving" and then some is being paid in additional ta…

Actually in many places solar is currently cheaper than the utility, without having to be a cheaper generation source.

For example a cost of 15c per kwh cost from solar is pretty trivial in many parts of the world nowadays. But here's the thing, for example in the Netherlands, I pay 7c per kwh for electricity, and then about 13c in energy specific tariffs, and then VAT on the whole lot. My final electricity price is about 3x (22c) the cost of the electricity itself. But for every kwh I generate myself and don't buy, I save 22c.

In other words, at a hypothetical cost of 15c per kwh, twice as much as electricity from my utility, I save almost half of my bill.

That situation differs radically between countries and even states, but again, savings on solar are a very typical story nowadays. I'd say most solar buyers today are saving money. 5-6 years ago that was different, when most people who bought were still buying with a moral position in mind and paid a slight premium.

Mostly, I don't think people realise how incredibly subsidised solar is. Per unit of energy generated, direct taxes/subsidies are much, much higher than oil. The other part of that story is that we have path dependency in oil and that the carter doctrine has cost trillions of dollars, and that externalities aren't priced in much for fossil. (e.g. cost of pollution, droughts etc).

For example, here's an interesting thought. For every $1m you buy in solar, you get about half a MW in capacity, which generates a little under 1 GWH per year (rounding it up very heavily here but you'll see it's mostly irrelevant). Now here's what that means. First of all, you can get a 30% tax credit, which you can sell. That's $300k recuperated. Then on a portion of the cost, 85% iirc, you can depreciate within 5 years or so. At a tax rate of 35%, that's a total of $300k in tax avoidance due to depreciation. So right off the bat in tax structuring, you've already gotten more than 50% off. Then, your almost 1 GWH per year generates solar credits, which you can sell, too, for about $100k per year. And yes you can presell these for 10 years into the future.

And then and only then, after you've paid $1m, received $600k in tax back from the government and sold solar credits for just the first 10 years for $1m (on a system with 20-40 years of lifetime at least), when you already made $600k accounting profit without generating a single electron, then you can start to actually sell the energy to an offtaker (like an Amazon warehouse) for about 10c per kwh, making you a little under $100k a year.

So you invest $1m, you get $1m, you get $600k in tax benefits and annual income of a little under $100k. Sounds insane? Well it sort of is. It depends on the state, some states are crap (low cost of electricity, low price of solar credit market, little offtaker demand, few solar resources (sun), difficult regulations etc etc), some are great.

And beyond that, solar is simply becoming cheaper really fast. For example, SolarFirst just signed a contract for a 100 MW solar project at a kwh price of 3.8c. Pretty insane.

Anyway in short the notion that solar savings are disingenuous is completely false. In fact virtually all of the big solar companies offer leases right now, where you pay nothing upfront, you don't own the panels, but you lease them on your roof and pay an electricity bill that's lower in the vast majority of cases than your utility. That's their main selling point.

Re: Project Sunroof

#210
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was true several years ago, but the cost of solar has come down substantially even without considering tax subsidies, and is continuing to decrease at a healthy rate. For example, Sunroof estimates that a 5.75kWh system would cost $21,500 before subsidies (about $15k after, but we're ignoring that), and that it will save you (gross) $60,000 over 20 years in utility bill costs. You can either: a) Invest that capi…

I wish "who pays for the system" and "where the system is installed" are decoupled, via a market that lets investors finance the system and the installation and own the resulting energy, and house owners or other sites that merely provide a place to install the panels in return for $x worth of free energy every month. If you're a house owner, you'll bid on the X, or different energy companies could make you offers, a…

What you're describing is what every solar company does right now. SolarCity doesn't sell you panels, they sell you 2 products. The first is electricity from panels they own on your roof. The other is a lease of panels they own on your roof that you get electricity from.

In essence SolarCity and everyone else bids for your roof and business through their pricing. (which currently undercuts utilities).

And SolarCity in return is creating solar bond products essentially, where the market can invest their capital in these roofs that SC is producing energy on, with the monthly bills as interest.

But it doesn't solve the issue the person you replied to highlighted, which is that it may or may not be financially advisable to 'hold out', and buy solar when the price has come down. After all, even if you don't buy and own the panels, the lease is still a 20 year contract. And there's no way SolarCity or any company would reduce those to short-term contracts because there are fixed costs that can't be recuperated in the short-term, meaning you need long-term contracts to get an ROI. (sending technicians to replace installations every few years wouldn't make financial sense).

So the end result right now is that yes, you could in a way (by investing in solar companies or their financial products) invest in other people's roofs, despite not dismantling panels on your roof, in say 5 years from now when new installations are financially better performing than your roof panels. But it doesn't magically make your investment in your own roof (or anyone's roof, 5 years ago, for that matter) disappear. The money is still locked up in that roof (whether you paid for it, or locked up money by signing a 20 year contract), and so merely decoupling everything doesn't solve that issue, and in many ways we're already decoupling to a large extent with the securitisation of roof installations.

Post reply on HN