Tesla’s new Solar Roof costs less than a new roof plus solar panels • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by Quequau » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

I have a friend in America who has a fairly large PV set up on part of his property. Listening to the all the obstacles he's had to overcome and all the surprising limitations he's saddled with, I can't help but suspect that the power company in his area that he's selling the power to would rather that these sorts of installations simply not exist.

Coupling that with the fact that off-peak pricing isn't the norm in a lot of markets, I have to wonder if trying to implement smaller build outs is really worth the effort or expense... though I'll be the first to say that I've not researched it thoroughly.

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

#92

Post by makomk » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #40

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.

The same thing happens in Europe, most of the eco-related additional costs are actually regressive taxes that will mostly fall on the less better off. There are not that many media outlets openly discussing this, and the few people who actually do talk about it are painted as “wanting to destroy the planet” or worse.

UK solar subsidies were particularly daft in this regard - because we're further north and have terrible weather, capacity factor is pretty awful compared to somewhere like California, plus solar is guaranteed to contribute a big fat zero to peak power demand (which is after sunset in winter). It basically just acted as a hand-out to wealthy home owners paid in part out of the power bills of the less well off. Somehow this didn't stop our nominally left-wing party attacking the government for ending it, though...

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

#93

Post by dx87 » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #69

dx87 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not going to cost 34k to install solar panels on his roof. Tesla's claim seems disengenous at best.

It's comparing apples and oranges. Presumably the OP is not using premium concrete (terracotta) tiles on his roof. Tesla is cheaper than a premium roof with solar panels and the details of said comparison are laid out on their site.

The comparison on Tesla's site still looks misleading.

"comparable price of a typical roof + solar panels"

Having premium concrete shingles isn't a "typical roof". They also use small greyed out text to say they are comparing it to concrete shingles, but use big black text for the higher price, and hide the fact that the Solar Roof is only cheaper because of tax breaks behind a "See More" button.

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

#94

Post by bArray » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

cco wrote: post #34

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? I have noticed that slate roofs are much more common in the UK than the US but still I see majority asphalt shingles, curious what y'all call them, on single family homes built within the last couple hundred years. I wish y'all had some more thatch roofs but I suppose given the history in London, driving to the Cottswolds to see a thatched roof is probably fine ;)

> I wish y'all had some more thatch roofs [..]

In my local area we did, but at one point there was a push to demolish them all as they were "unsafe". I have a few stories about this for another time...

The problems with thatch is it's relatively hands on, you have to swap it out occasionally as the stuff rots.

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

#95

Post by arethuza » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

surewhynat wrote: post #73

twistedpair wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

A tip someone told me here in the UK is that if you are buying an inexpensive property try and get one that was built and owned by social housing operators - they actually have much higher construction standards and will have been maintained properly.

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

#96

Post by tgtweak » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

s_Hogg wrote: post #8

Wonder what build quality is like with this. Is Tesla starting to get this kind of product issue sorted?

Apparently the build quality issues (roofs shorting, catching on fire) were traditional panels, and not manufacturer by themselves.

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

#97

Post by bArray » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #57

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…

> Seems like you're looking at 80% of rated efficiency after 20 years If you are living off grid, that might be an issue although it could be fixed by just getting some more solar panels later or oversupplying at first. However, for people still connected to the grid, they can just use a little more later on from the grid so I don't see what the big deal is.

> [..] they can just use a little more later on from the grid

> so I don't see what the big deal is.

If you had panels overlaid you could easily replace them - or even upgrade them as technology gets better.

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

#98

Post by NeedMoreTea » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #92

paganel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing happens in Europe, most of the eco-related additional costs are actually regressive taxes that will mostly fall on the less better off. There are not that many media outlets openly discussing this, and the few people who actually do talk about it are painted as “wanting to destroy the planet” or worse.

UK solar subsidies were particularly daft in this regard - because we're further north and have terrible weather, capacity factor is pretty awful compared to somewhere like California, plus solar is guaranteed to contribute a big fat zero to peak power demand (which is after sunset in winter). It basically just acted as a hand-out to wealthy home owners paid in part out of the power bills of the less well off. Someho…

...and yet it is particularly common in the UK for the home solar to be installed by a commercial provider (who don't get that subsidy, just feed-in tariffs), that provide the panels in exchange for the feed-in tariff from your roof. You get mostly free electric and sometimes some portion of feed-in tariff, they own the panels.

If it was that pointless, this sort of deal could never add up, for either party.

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

#99

Post by oefrha » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

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?

I used to live in Palo Alto. There’s VTA (bus) and Caltrain. Stops are few and far between so getting to and from the stops are in and of itself a problem. Buses tend to arrive every 15 minutes (or longer) I believe? Pretty infrequent. And outside peak hours there’s usually like one Caltrain an hour, so missing one really sucks.

I had a colleague who had to travel frequently between Stanford and Berkeley (slightly unusual); it’s a sub-hour drive, but easily takes ~3 hours or more via public transit.

P.S. At least the Valley is fairly bike-friendly by U.S. standard.

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

#100

Post by derision » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

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.

It's not only rich people that get the incentive. $8550 is a lot for a middle class family that wants to upgrade their roof