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

71–80 of 313 posts

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

#71

Post by selectodude »

Someone1234 wrote: post #44
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.

Not quite. That $7500 is a full on tax credit. Not a deduction. So as long as you pay more than $7500 in taxes, you get it all back. And if for some reason you pay less, you’ll get a refund.

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

#72

Post by selectodude »

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'…

The US is a big place. In my area, it’s illegal to build houses out of wood. They’re all made out of brick. Every single one.

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

#73

Post by surewhynat »

twistedpair wrote: post #65
Someone1234 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> most US homes won't last 50 That's wild a claim. I live in a 115 year old US house made of "inexpensive" wood and it's doing just fine, like the rest of the neighborhood.

New builds have lower life expectancies. Thing about your fridge from the 40s, compressor built to last. How long has your stuff been lasting recently?

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

#74

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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.

They do similar TCO comparisons with their cars.

They estimate fuel savings and include tax incentives etc.

In both cases they're making a case that the upfront cost is less than it appears if the running costs are lower.

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

#75

Post by bdickason »

zaroth wrote: post #59

The interesting parts of the call yesterday for me were talking about the challenges they have with v2, although we didn’t really get to hear much about how those issues were addressed. First, that basically everyone was pulled off working on Energy to deal with Model 3 issues because they were do or die for the company. Now with Model 3 under control those resources were put back into Energy - solar, roof, and stora…

Thanks, this is super thorough!

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

#76

Post by NeedMoreTea »

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…

50 years is almost new. Most 100 year old terracotta tile are still on the original set, and slate often lasts 200.

Where roofs are replaced, aside from storm damage, it's most common for that to be down to having got rot in the woodwork than fault with the tile. I suspect a fair few are down to iffy sales tactics from dodgy builders. (i.e. get someone out to fix the chimney flashing "oh, major problem you need a whole new roof...")

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

#77

Post by metafunctor »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #51
pgl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Isn't that how all successful technology starts off - highly priced, effectively experimental, but then becoming more and more available to the general public as the price goes down and production increases?

The trouble is that you're necessarily picking winners and losers in order to design the incentive scheme. It makes no sense to pay somebody $7500 to buy a new car to drive to work, but not to switch to cycling or telecommuting. In this case, it's not necessarily clear that this is a product that needs to happen. Grid scale solar is significantly cheaper due to the economies of scale. Were there a carbon tax, there'd…

That's exactly what regulation is and does. It picks winners, picks harmful phenomenon, and acts accordingly, with a short-to-medium timeframe based on what would get the most votes.

I, too, believe that taxing actual atmospheric carbon impact would be great, but how would you measure such a thing fairly?

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

#78

Post by nraynaud »

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.

I just moved back to France after living 2 years in Phoenix. You can't rely on public transportation, I don't want to wait for a freaking bus to go get milk. I want density enough that there will be a shop I can walk to. public transportation, is good for important planed travel like going to work, but not for small stuff like going to the pharmacy or the gym or going from shop to shop to find the couch of your dreams.

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

#79

Post by annoyingnoob »

cma wrote: post #49
annoyingnoob wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In town, yes. Between towns, maybe/sort of/infrequently.

I can drive to work in 15 minutes. The bus takes over an hour including 30 minutes of walking. There are no bike lanes between home and work, its possible to bike it but really not safe - I'd guess the bike would take about 40 minutes.

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

#80

Post by tibiapejagala »

rootsudo wrote: post #48
buboard wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The trickle-down of the left.
Post reply on HN