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

211–220 of 313 posts

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

#211

Post by grogenaut »

macspoofing wrote: post #203
mrep wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you use batteries which is in the default option. From the article "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 square-foot roof)"

>Or you use batteries which is in the default option. What batteries? Hate to break it to you, but there is no battery technology capable of storing enough energy to bridge solar intermittency gaps at even the scale of a city.

Of course there are, the you just called it something else: hydro.

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

#212

Post by the8472 »

lscotte wrote: post #191
dx87 wrote: post #12

I wonder where they're getting their average price from, because I've never heard of a new roof and solar panel installation being that expensive. EDIT: They're comparing it to concrete roof tiles, which a quick search say that they last for ~50 years, twice as long as the warranty for the Tesla solar roof. https://www.tesla.com/solarroof/design

Definitely, the solar price in that article is twice what I paid for my 9.4KW system. I wouldn't have gotten Tesla anyway, even if it was cheaper. This is not the sort of place I'm willing to be an early adopter - once they have proven they have decades of experience, like SMA and others, then maybe. Until then, no way.

Decades of experience are a bit much to ask when the market didn't even even exist 19 years ago.

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

#213

Post by gibolt »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #193
IshKebab wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Warranty is different from how long something will last.

So, should we expect the Tesla roof, which has historically had so many issues that they’ve done very few installations, to suddenly be able to last 50 years?

What issues? They did very few installations of previous iterations because they took a long time to install, thus were expensive. Doesn't mean there were any quality issues

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

#214

Post by jacobsenscott »

FlyingAvatar wrote: post #63
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…

Exactly how is that out of the reach of anyone but the wealthy? Amortized over 30 years, it's barely over $110 per month and for most homes would bring the electric bill to near zero.

Assuming you'll be in the same house for 30 years is a big gamble. What if you need to move in 5 or 10 years? You're house value doesn't go up $40k when you put $40k tesla roof on top.

I would bet a tesla roof actually reduces your house value. Imagine the cost of any roof maintenance, or trying to find a roofer who can work on it without just doing more damage.

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

#216

Post by Retric »

jacquesm wrote: post #205
Retric wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you’re failing to build enough solar. There is zero reason to ramp up storage rather than reduce the need for it. Over production is cheaper than any other option and reduces the need for longer term storage as daily solar output never drops to zero. Solar is cheap enough it’s still cost competitive if you assume significant power production is wasted. Further, battery systems are designed to avoid full disch…

> daily solar output never drops to zero True, but it is also almost never 'rated power'. Typically a solar installation will deliver somewhere between 30 and 50% of rated power on average, depending on your latitude it might be even lower. The times when solar panels work at their best is during clear winter days and when they are capable of two axis adjustment. Because of the cost of such an installation the typica…

The economics of residential solar is heavily tied to local conditions. But, for grid solar there is little reasons to build it in the north rather than just move electricity from the south. We are already below 2c/kWh for solar power in some areas, the average consumer price is 13.27 cents per kilowatt hour in the US. That’s a lot of wiggle room.

Let’s assume 50% over production that’s 4c/kWh, backed up by 60h worth of batteries and transmission and your still cheaper than Nuclear while covering base load and peaking power needs. Further at National grid scale 50% over production an 60h of batteries is crazy overkill.

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

#217

Post by valley-green »

Tesla overcharges for everything and acts like it’s hot new shit when really we already had electric cars and solar panels for half the cost and the other half pays for the “marketing” that convinces you to pay 2X actual cost. They would make you pre-order it too if they could.

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

#218

Post by makomk »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #164
makomk wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feed-in tariffs are a subsidy - they pay out more than the actual market value of the electricity, and that money comes from the bills paid by other consumers. This is especially true of the ones on older UK solar installations, which are higher than the retail cost of the electricity. There might be some justification for arguing that the ones in other places with much greater reliance on air conditioning and a summ…

The sad thing is, the feed-in tariff subsidy would be less than UK's existing fossil fuel subsidies for homeowners. Yet solar is worth doing today in the UK, even with no subsidy if you project to stay in the house long enough to pay back capital cost. With current solar pricing, it would be better for everyone if they simply moved a requirement for solar into the building regs. Like they've steadily done with insula…

A large chunk of the UK's existing "fossil fuel subsidies" for homeowners consist of the government charging a lower 5% VAT rate on domestic electricity and heating, much of which of course comes from fossil fuels. Take that away and spend the money on feed-in-tariffs, and you're again transferrirng money from the less well off to the wealthy.

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

#219

Post by gibolt »

macspoofing wrote: post #202
mepiethree wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> solar needs the grid to be even close to viable This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now. > The only power generators that can do that are ones that burn fossil fuels. Fossil fuel generators do NOT ramp up and down quickly. BTM and FTM battery storage solutions ramp up and down faster and are rapidly becoming cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternatives. > energy use in building…

>This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now. Will the sun start shining at night in 20 years? >Fossil fuel generators do NOT ramp up and down quickly. Natural gas ramps as quickly as it can. But let's assume that's true, that's not a point against me, it's a point against solar because then it means that solar is completely unworkable. >Every one of these supposed drawbacks of solar also apply…

Storage costs are dropping rapidly. New batteries are nearly there for cost competitiveness. As the first generation of BEV batteries become 'spent', they will be reused in grid-scale applications. Space and weight are not a concern, and most will have ~70% of their original capacity. That accelerates quickly once Gen 2 batteries have hit end of life.

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

#220

Post by jacquesm »

Retric wrote: post #216
jacquesm wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> daily solar output never drops to zero True, but it is also almost never 'rated power'. Typically a solar installation will deliver somewhere between 30 and 50% of rated power on average, depending on your latitude it might be even lower. The times when solar panels work at their best is during clear winter days and when they are capable of two axis adjustment. Because of the cost of such an installation the typica…

The economics of residential solar is heavily tied to local conditions. But, for grid solar there is little reasons to build it in the north rather than just move electricity from the south. We are already below 2c/kWh for solar power in some areas, the average consumer price is 13.27 cents per kilowatt hour in the US. That’s a lot of wiggle room. Let’s assume 50% over production that’s 4c/kWh, backed up by 60h worth…

> But, for grid solar there is little reasons to build it in the north rather than just move electricity from the south.

That's true, and if you're going to ship it then HVDC lines running East/West can add a couple of hours overlap as well. All this focus on rooftop solar is nice because it is decentralized but quite a few parts of a structural solution will not come from rooftop solar but from very large grid scale installations.

Post reply on HN