Tesla opens pre-orders for the solar roof tiles

[Monkey Dust]

At that price makes sense on a new build as you'd have to pay for a roof anyway, retro fitting it to an existing building less so. I note they are starting deliveries to the UK next year, I wonder how they perform this far north even when it's sunny? Or how much they'll generate on a grey, cloudy day?

[dizmo]

On 2017-05-10 at 5:58 PM, raphidy said:

It's great innovation from Tesla, but if you want the mainstream market to adopt it, it should be cheap. Not everyone with average salary will buy this new roof tomorrow morning. The only thing I don't like about solar technology is that you have to store that huge battery somewhere near and depending on the use of it and the quality you should replace it between 5 to 10 years. It's just not affordable enough IMO.

What people do you know that go out and just buy a new roof? That's not what the product is intended to be marketed as. It's an option if you're going to replace your roof anyway. Your arguments make absolutely no sense.

On 2017-05-10 at 6:18 PM, aubryscully said:

I live in the Houston area and will say its pretty nice. Places like Waco have great scenery and housing is really cheap. Not many people want to go to Mexico due to safety reasons, but I do have a few friends (of hispanic descent) that travel down semiregularly to visit relatives.

Ahhh yeah true enough. Plus I could see your CBP being extra annoying at the border.

What's the weather like in the winter though?

23 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

I love it here. Super hot summers and all. Best cross section of food from around the world is here in spades.

 

A lot of people do vacation in Mexico, but Texas has so much within it you really don't HAVE to go elsewhere.

 

As for fragility newer designs are less fragile, from what is said about the big installations the bigger maintenance hurdle is cleaning and degradation. A lot of that is just because of how separated the development is from the production side. Tesla is doing it right, getting the production and development in the same house to get better results. it was bound to happen eventually, but if someone had started down that road with a clear plan 2 decades ago we may have had a lot more progress by now.

Haha, you'd have me sold at the food part. One of the main reasons I want to go visit Korea (aside from the cuties, though I'd want one that wasn't altered ). I suppose, though travel really opens your mind to other views in the world IMO.

 

Ahhh gotcha. So the Tesla way would still likely be cheaper in the long run then. Plus look nicer? I think that'd be a huge plus.

[ARikozuM]

9 hours ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Priced a bit too much imo , pricing is at $42/sq-ft .

Considering people pay nearly $70/sq. ft. for quartz and granite countertops, I don't see how this is any worse since it pays you back over time.

[leadeater]

On 5/11/2017 at 11:58 AM, raphidy said:

It's great innovation from Tesla, but if you want the mainstream market to adopt it, it should be cheap. Not everyone with average salary will buy this new roof tomorrow morning. The only thing I don't like about solar technology is that you have to store that huge battery somewhere near and depending on the use of it and the quality you should replace it between 5 to 10 years. It's just not affordable enough IMO.

You don't have to use batteries in a solar system, many solar deployments are just grid-tied systems with no batteries at all. The overall effective efficiency of produced energy to used energy is lower than a system with batteries but the cost of install is much lower. You can at a later date add batteries if you wish.

 

If you don't use batteries then you need to shop around to find the best power company that allows buy back for any extra energy you produce and feed back in to the grid.

[Belgarathian]

On 5/11/2017 at 9:18 AM, raphidy said:

30 years for return after investment is kinda meh and you need to change your powerwall twice in those years. Only for people with money to burn.

Well yeah, but what is the ROI for a colour steel roof? 

[HalGameGuru]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Considering people pay nearly $70/sq. ft. for quartz and granite countertops, I don't see how this is any worse since it pays you back over time.

A counter top is a couple dozen sq. ft, seen and used every day, and on top of looking nice a stone countertop is easier to clean and sanitize. And barring an accident will last longer than the house its in.

 

3 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

Well yeah, but what is the ROI for a colour steel roof? 

Wrong question, with as long as steel roofs last and how much cheaper they CAN be what you have to ask is what kind of ROI can I get with the DIFFERENCE in price over that same time period.

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

-snip-

Yeah I think the tesla model is the right way to go, and shoulda been utilized a long time ago. But, it won't be much use to ME until it drops in price, a lot. But for new construction, especially in Cali and the desert SW it would definitely be a good option.

 

The pacific rim has tons of respect from me for food and hotties. Houston is a lot less expensive to visit and we have large local populations from all over the place. Korea and Japan are smaller enclaves than Vietnam and China but its still a good representation.

[aubryscully]

10 hours ago, dizmo said:

On 5/10/2017 at 7:18 PM, aubryscully said:

 

Ahhh yeah true enough. Plus I could see your CBP being extra annoying at the border.

What's the weather like in the winter though?

Dealing with customs isnt too bad. The issue is mainly safety on the other side.

 

And yeah the food is realllly good. Tex Mex is totally where its at ?

 

haha what winter? It starts to cool off around late October and the coldest it gets is ~35. Doesnt even stay like that for long too.

[Tech Enthusiast]

In germany we can just sell that extra power back to the companys.

 

So we get solar power and are still connected to the common grid. Whatever we overproduce gets sold automatically. So usually solar power breaks even after 3 years for us. This is before tesla made that stuff cheaper and more efficient.

 

If you "just" look at the bills you save, that can take a while. Sure. The lower your energy bills are, the longer it takes. Our household only consists of 2 people right now and we have bills in the 4 digits every year for a 65m³ flat (yeah, germany is not exactly cheap for energy). We checked out a house a year ago and did the math. Even considering a rainy year, without much sun. Old tech. Higher installation cost. We would not only have reduced the bills to zero, but actually earned 1200ish euros in that year.

 

That being said, good luck getting a house in germany anything sub 1 million, plus buying the ground for about the same price just so you are allowed to build. Roofs are not exactly a big part in that. (unless you like being all alone in a forest, you can get that for less haha)

[Ljodoin]

Lurking for updates. Energy is too expensive of the East coast.

[dizmo]

On 2017-05-12 at 0:19 AM, HalGameGuru said:

Yeah I think the tesla model is the right way to go, and shoulda been utilized a long time ago. But, it won't be much use to ME until it drops in price, a lot. But for new construction, especially in Cali and the desert SW it would definitely be a good option.

The pacific rim has tons of respect from me for food and hotties. Houston is a lot less expensive to visit and we have large local populations from all over the place. Korea and Japan are smaller enclaves than Vietnam and China but its still a good representation.

Yeah, for sure. I think labour is also a major barrier, since roofing isn't something a lot of people are willing to do themselves.

I'm surprised they haven't made it mandatory in California, what with their energy issues.

 

Is Houston safe? I always picture the major US cities as being rather unsafe. Next year I want to take a roadtrip down south to Texas, through the small states along back roads. I think it'd be a blast!

[HalGameGuru]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

Yeah, for sure. I think labour is also a major barrier, since roofing isn't something a lot of people are willing to do themselves.

I'm surprised they haven't made it mandatory in California, what with their energy issues.

 

Is Houston safe? I always picture the major US cities as being rather unsafe. Next year I want to take a roadtrip down south to Texas, through the small states along back roads. I think it'd be a blast!

Most big cities in the US only have a crime problem in relation to drugs and gangs. Houston is no different. You stay out of bad areas, and away from high schools when they are getting out, you are golden. I'm licensed to carry, but I've never felt like I NEEDED to carry. And I routinely roll around town at 2AM.

[themctipers]

i'd buy.

@iamdarkyoshi come and install it at my house  

[8uhbbhu8]

This is sweet. If your planning to get a new roof anyway or building a new house this could be a very well worth it investment. If your going to spend the amount of money needed to do or redo your roof anyway this is a way to make it cheaper in the long run. Combine this with highly efficient electric appliances, a properly insulated house, all windows facing south (if you live in the northern hemisphere), geothermal heating and cooling, a power wall or two. timed heating and cooling depending on when your home or away, and other energy efficient methods and it could really make a huge difference to how much you spend total over the lifespan you intend to have the house and after.

 

people in places that have high electric or gas prices (Ontario i'm looking at you ) would benefit hugely from this 

[Thunderpup]

I find this rather disappointing.  

 

When they say the price is $50k that means how much you will have spent after the federal and NY state subsidies have gone into effect; which isn't until you have filed your taxes.  The amount of money you have to spend up front is going to be a lot more and it won't be until you do your taxes that you get some of the money back from the Gov't.

 

That being said even at $50k it is a hard sell.  When people get a new roof they generally only need new shingles and frankly that doesn't cost too much. for my 1325 sq ft. ranch home the cost for just shingles would be 4-5k for an architectural roof.  After that it would be another 5-10k (depending on desired output) for  traditional solar panels and associated materials.

 

So compared to the traditional method the ROI on solar shingles is a lot worse; with the only benefit being they are less of an eyesore. 

[The Benjamins]

On 5/11/2017 at 11:04 PM, leadeater said:

You don't have to use batteries in a solar system, many solar deployments are just grid-tied systems with no batteries at all. The overall effective efficiency of produced energy to used energy is lower than a system with batteries but the cost of install is much lower. You can at a later date add batteries if you wish.

 

If you don't use batteries then you need to shop around to find the best power company that allows buy back for any extra energy you produce and feed back in to the grid.

 

grid tied systems are very inefficient. all unused power is lost the grid isn't designed to be supplied power by the home. in theory it can but it almost never gets passed the transformer, despite the power companies legally having to payback the power you give the the network. at best you can give power to your closest neighbor, but the distance lose can be to great.

 

 

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

 

grid tied systems are very inefficient. all unused power is lost the grid isn't designed to be supplied power by the home. in theory it can but it almost never gets passed the transformer, despite the power companies legally having to payback the power you give the the network. at best you can give power to your closest neighbor, but the distance lose can be to great.

 

 

Not all power companies have to pay back produced power, you also need a different power meter to do it and it's pay back by how much you produce and the $/kw. Some place a cap on how much they will pay back others have decreasing payout as you produce more etc, it varies a lot by country etc. Once it's passed your power meter that's not your problem anymore and it's not worth worrying about, to an extent.

 

Typically if you want to feed power back in to the grid and if the power company's transformer needs upgrading you have to pay for it, yes you for the whole thing that every house in the segment connects to. There is also a different loading factor that needs to be taken in to account for the power company when they have customers feeding back in to the system and it puts a much high load on the transformers, power grids that exist today where never designed for customer endpoints to be power producing.

 

When you do grid-tied, which is the most common type of deployment in developed countries, that don't use batteries you need to do much more accurate and proper sizing of the system so you don't over spend.

 

Grid-tied with battery systems are also rather complex as you have to size the solar array on the battery bank size not on how much energy your house need/uses, the solar array needs to be able to charge the battery bank within around 6 hours of sunlight otherwise you have a negative loss system and then you have to charge the batteries from the grid.

 

P.S. Grid-tied does not mean you feed power back to the grid, it means you have dual source of power and if you exceed the power of the solar array the system will draw the differential from the grid preventing a brown/black out.

[The Benjamins]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not all power companies have to pay back produced power, you also need a different power meter to do it and it's pay back by how much you produce and the $/kw. Some place a cap on how much they will pay back others have decreasing payout as you produce more etc, it varies a lot by country etc. Once it's passed your power meter that's not your problem anymore and it's not worth worrying about, to an extend.

 

Typically if you want to feed power back in to the grid and if the power company's transformer needs upgrading you have to pay for it, yes you for the whole thing that every house in the segment connects to. There is also a different loading factor that needs to be taken in to account for the power company when they have customers feeding back in to the system and it puts a much high load on the transformers, power grids that exist today where never designed for customer endpoints to be power producing.

 

When you do grid-tied, which is the most common type of deployment in developed countries, that don't use batteries you need to do much more accurate and proper sizing of the system so you don't over spend.

 

Grid-tied with battery systems are also rather complex as you have to size the solar array on the battery bank size not on how much energy your house need/uses, the solar array needs to be able to charge the battery bank within around 6 hours of sunlight otherwise you have a negative loss system and then you have to charge the batteries from the grid.

 

P.S. Grid-tied does not mean you feed power back to the grid, it means you have dual source of power and if you exceed the power of the solar array the system will draw the differential from the grid preventing a brown/black out.

ya, just stating that the power you give back is basically always lost.

 

 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

ya, just stating that the power you give back is basically always lost.

It's a rather interesting problem for power companies too and how they are dealing with home solar systems, some are just down right hostile to it and fight hard to prevent it and others are very sneaky about it.

 

Here there are some power companies that have partnered with solar installers and help market those systems but there is a very good reason for it. What they want to do ensure they have the daily line rental charge locked in, as part of the installs which are all grid-tied there is a contract making you keep it grid-tied. It's smart in the sense that they are ensuring they have a minimum customer base rather than just outright losing them but they aren't really doing anything to redesign the grid to be able to actually make use of those solar systems.

[randomhkkid]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's a rather interesting problem for power companies too and how they are dealing with home solar systems, some are just down right hostile to it and fight hard to prevent it and others are very sneaky about it.

 

Here there are some power companies that have partnered with solar installers and help market those systems but there is a very good reason for it. What they want to do ensure they have the daily line rental charge locked in, as part of the installs which are all grid-tied there is a contract making you keep it grid-tied. It's smart in the sense that they are ensuring they have a minimum customer base rather than just outright losing them but they aren't really doing anything to redesign the grid to be able to actually make use of those solar systems.

This is actually a super interesting problem. I've never seen this publicised before but it sounds like a huge issue if things like solar are ever really going to take off. I wonder if there is legislation pertaining to the problem specifically (or a lack of it haha)? Then again it sounds like something that will vary drastically by country and not something very easily overturned.

[The Benjamins]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's a rather interesting problem for power companies too and how they are dealing with home solar systems, some are just down right hostile to it and fight hard to prevent it and others are very sneaky about it.

 

Here there are some power companies that have partnered with solar installers and help market those systems but there is a very good reason for it. What they want to do ensure they have the daily line rental charge locked in, as part of the installs which are all grid-tied there is a contract making you keep it grid-tied. It's smart in the sense that they are ensuring they have a minimum customer base rather than just outright losing them but they aren't really doing anything to redesign the grid to be able to actually make use of those solar systems.

 

6 minutes ago, randomhkkid said:

This is actually a super interesting problem. I've never seen this publicised before but it sounds like a huge issue if things like solar are ever really going to take off. I wonder if there is legislation pertaining to the problem specifically (or a lack of it haha)? Then again it sounds like something that will vary drastically by country and not something very easily overturned.

The power company my company works for has to maintain power lines to every home even if they do not pay for service. So every solar home is a money pit. Laws and regulations are also not ready for solar homes.