Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 313 posts

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#41

Post by mantap »

werdnapk wrote: post #31
deelowe wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US roofs last more like 25 to 30 years for shingles.

The manufacturer states 25-30 years for shingles, but it's rarely the case they actually last that long unless you're paying for premium shingles. I'm in Canada though, so perhaps the harsher weather has something to do with that. Regardless, in Canada at least, 25-30 years for shingles is not common; 15-20 is more realistic from what I can tell in my area.

Why do they degrade so quickly? I also live in UK and replacing an entire roof is not a common thing to do, every 50 years sounds about right, my roof is 35 years old without any leaks.

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#42

Post by opencl »

rco8786 wrote: post #26
aphextron wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cheaper than traditional roof plus solar. I find that really hard to believe. A new roof runs between 5-10k, and a 3kw solar system can be had for ~5k + labor. Even if they are including a power wall in that price it's still pretty steep. Edit: It looks like they are actually quoting a 10kw system with 3 power walls (~40kwH storage) included, which at that point sounds about right at $40k. Still far beyond the reac…

> new roof runs between 5-10k, That is incredibly cheap if so. That would be a roof on a small barn around here.

Seems pretty normal where I live. Shingles are like $1/square foot but the labor costs of course vary wildly depending on location.

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#43

Post by zaroth »

mikorym wrote: post #28
wil421 wrote: post #6

> Tesla’s Solar Roof website now includes a pricing estimator, which lists $42,500 as the total price for the average 2,000 square-foot home, with 10kW solar panels. It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. You can also enter your address and get an updated estimate that takes into account local costs and incentives, and add on any Powerwalls (with three as the default for a 2,000 squ…

I wonder if they should just skip comparing it with a normal roof or normal roof + solar. A Model 3 is way more expensive than the average ICE sedan; people buy it anyway.

You get to drive the Model 3.

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#44

Post by Someone1234 »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #25

> It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. There is something absolutely astonishing about the fact that in America the way we have go about being eco-friendly is to give huge tax breaks to rich people to buy solar panels and electric vehicles. To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing. Really boggles the mind.

Indeed. The electric vehicle incentives are very much designed that way. The rich get more money than the poor. The higher your income, the more you get back. I'd have to earn an extra $30K to get the full $7,500 (and switch from high deductible to traditional healthcare/cancel my HSA), whereas someone wealthier buying the same car gets every cent.

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#45

Post by buboard »

hokkos wrote: post #36
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #25

> It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. There is something absolutely astonishing about the fact that in America the way we have go about being eco-friendly is to give huge tax breaks to rich people to buy solar panels and electric vehicles. To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing. Really boggles the mind.

Incentiving rich people to buy expansive tech (and still at lost for the riches) help the technologies to ride the cost curve and bring it to the masses.

that can't be true as rich people are by definition a small minority. why not just give the subsidies directly to the companies

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#46

Post by rory096 »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #25

> It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. There is something absolutely astonishing about the fact that in America the way we have go about being eco-friendly is to give huge tax breaks to rich people to buy solar panels and electric vehicles. To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing. Really boggles the mind.

>To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing.

Denser housing isn't built because our local land use policymaking paradigms give the power to block it to the people who don't want it, not because of a lack of federal subsidies.

If anything, the infrastructure built with that money would be road infrastructure to support further sprawl.

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#47

Post by arethuza »

Someone1234 wrote: post #35
bArray wrote: post #22

I think a major challenge that is yet to be addressed is the fact that solar panels lose their efficiency over time [1] [2]. Seems like you're looking at 80% of rated efficiency after 20 years - and I'm unsure this includes failures. In the UK a 50+ year old roof is very common - most people expect a house to outlast them without anything but minor repairs. If I were building a house I would want something where it's…

UK roofs are made and ceramic and slate. US roofs are made of asphalt. Mostly because asphalt is inexpensive (particularly due to economies of scale/lack of them on ceramic). Ceramic lasts a lifetime, asphalt can be taken out by one bad hail storm. UK homes are made of brick. US homes are made of fiberboard and inexpensive woods. There's a reason why UK homes have lasted over one hundred years, and most US homes won'…

"UK homes are made of brick"

I've lived in 11 properties in the UK (owning 4 of them) and most of them were made of stone and were 150+ years old - only the first one (a 1950s council house) was brick.

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#48

Post by rootsudo »

buboard wrote: post #45
hokkos wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incentiving rich people to buy expansive tech (and still at lost for the riches) help the technologies to ride the cost curve and bring it to the masses.

that can't be true as rich people are by definition a small minority. why not just give the subsidies directly to the companies

I would also say that Rich people pave the way for adaption.

For example, look at prices of flights. Before there was no "first class" everything was first class, now there are cabin options.

While that example is a service, more proliferation of service == wider adaption == increased scale of economies == eventually prices come down for everyone.

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#49

Post by cma »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #39
nraynaud wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans on average do not want denser housing. It's not part of their culture, they don't see the point, they want a backyard, and they don't mind having to drive all the time. I'm pretty sure that even the people benefitting for the wealth cities produce would prefer not to live there, and I think the development of rich people's houses along the CT coast attest to that, they try to balance the wealth of the city…

I think you are right that a lot of Americans do not want dense housing. One thing we are missing, especially on the west coast, is good public transportation. Its not that I don't mind driving as much as that I don't have a choice. I'd love to take a train/subway to work or to the next town over or to the big city nearby - but those trains do not exist.

Are there buses?

Re: Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels

#50

Post by colejohnson66 »

meerita wrote: post #33
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #25

> It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. There is something absolutely astonishing about the fact that in America the way we have go about being eco-friendly is to give huge tax breaks to rich people to buy solar panels and electric vehicles. To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing. Really boggles the mind.

Why people has to paid more just because they're rich?

Reframe that question: Why should poor people pay more because they’re not rich enough for the incentives?

OP is not saying rich people should pay more; He’s saying get rid of the tax incentives. Yes, they end up paying more, but then poor people are paying the same as the rich.

Post reply on HN