No One Saw Tesla’s Solar Roof Coming
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
But these have far better aesthetics than previous BIPV efforts. They look better individually and they aren't clumped in one odd shiny patch on the roof like past BIPV. Search for images of solar shingles and you'll see what I mean about previous attempts.
On Friday's thread someone here mentioned the 30% tax credit for solar installations. That made the financial proposition click for me. If the whole roof qualifies as a solar system, that's probably how they can make it financially attractive. Unlike past module-atop-roof or even patch-of-roof-BIPV offerings, you'd be able to get a tax credit for the whole shebang. Add the usual solar motivation of reducing retail electricity purchases, plus getting a roof that's more durable and attractive than the typical asphalt or wood shingles of American roofs, and it looks like Tesla/SC may have a better offering than competitors for new home builds in areas with lots of sun and expensive electricity. It wouldn't take a whole lot of builds per year to soak up all the capacity of their Buffalo factory.
Just a few days ago I was saying that I couldn't see how any of the solar installation or manufacturing companies were going to build decent, defensible profit margins because panels and installation services are so commoditized. This could be the advantage that was missing: assuming decent patent coverage, SC will be able to have a monopoly on these modules and their installation for a long time to come.
The first 9 images Google returned in the top 2 rows for "solar shingles" have 2 pictures from Tesla/SC's presentation. (~22%). The 3 top rows (13 images) contain 3 images from the presentation (~23%). It looks like you're right about the change to come.
However, what have surprised me more is discovering that"solar shingles" have been a thing for so much time, and there are already some quite decent looking models, even curved ones. Of course, I have never heard about it. Tesla marketing is really far ahead of everyone else.
The panels are ugly and having to add a panel to get solar energy is clunky. I want to believe, looking at all the devices a smartphone has replaced, that one day this won't be the case.. Then I look at trees, devices that had millions of years to improve solar energy conversion but still rely on solar panels and it calms my passions. But maybe, we could evolve and plug the Calvin cycle into the Krebs cycle! Our skin has a surface of about 2m². We could go solar (would have to walk naked) or cover up and eat food. Maybe will come a time where people who rely on food are the pariahs of society. The "Covered Ones".
I suppose one great revolution would be finding a way to add the photovoltaic effect to materials (paints, fabrics, plastics, etc) or make these materials with the effect embedded. I think there are flexible panels that are being made, but even those look weird. I want it to be a materials property, similar to the antimicrobial property of copper alloys.
The irritating thing with microelectronics is that the die is minuscule and beautiful, but then you have to add pins and pads and a package. Dust is also a problem. It's amazing that a thin film of dust you couldn't even notice without a finger swipe could have such an impact. And then there's the connection between transistors that has to be a certain way.
What would be great would be for the transistor to become a molecule or be packaged in a molecule. Water is water and no matter the phase, the molecules adapt to find their place with respect to each other. The layout needs to be independent of humans' will and answer only to the laws of nature (you don't worry about each molecule when you apply a coat of paint).
solar shingles -tesla
YMMV :)
Is that really Elon Musk wants, monopoly ?
All businesses want that; it just isn't healthy for the economy.
That said, the combination of the PowerWall and the roof might actually make it more amenable for power companies since you could grid tie "for emergencies" but lower your total overall power budget and help avoid the evening surge (max grid usage in the Bay Area is about 5:30PM, solar is off-line and people are coming home from work, firing up appliances (like cooking dinner, getting a beer from the fridge which turns on the converter) environment systems (heating/cooling) are activating to bring the house to the 'occupied' temperature, Etc.
If your house uses its PowerWall for all that energy you'll appear as a much smoother non-load on the grid.
I'd almost worry more about about the size of the panels making installation problematic in a light to moderate wind, and having them sail off the roof into the neighbor's car.
Nowhere close to mining coal of course.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
Does anyone more knowledgeable care to comment? What other estimates are there? How are they calculated?
Additionally, I'd like to see fatality numbers for solar overall, not just rooftop solar. In the US at least more solar capacity is installed at ground-mount plants than on rooftops. The rooftop number itself could probably use an update; increasing module efficiency, if nothing else, is going to reduce the number of rooftop trips required for a given capacity, hence the number of accidents per terawatt hour.
Let's remind the whole picture here: We want to come back to global greenhouse gases emissions on 1990, because they were balanced by nature's absorption. It often happens that the cost of building solar panels, transporting them to the location, disposing them before their estimated time-to-live and getting rid of all their chemicals emit more carbon than we save by using electricity from the solar panels.
Another bias is: By making energy cheaper, does it encourage the use of said energy, thereby offsetting the gains? "I've saved 20% of carbon emissions compared to having a petrol-based SUV" tells another story than "I don't have an SUV".
Greenhouse gas ecology is hard. The only way to avoid doing those analysis would be to tax carbon emissions for the side effects they produce. Then we would be able to just by the cheapest, which would also be the most energy-efficient.
2) Under any reasonable set of assumptions, rooftop solar PV has significantly lower emissions per kWh than the cleanest fossil sources. In 2014 the IPCC estimated a median value of 41 gCO2-e/kWh for rooftop PV generation vs. 490 for combined cycle natural gas generation.
3) Perhaps some of the CO2 avoidance will be squandered eventually as solar becomes cheaper, thereby encouraging use of more electricity, but so far total electricity use is uncorrelated or even anti-correlated with the presence of rooftop solar generation. "Rooftop solar" and "energy-thrifty building construction/operation" cluster together, so far, rather than displacing each other.
This report looks pretty good if you want just one document: https://www.nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/resources/iea_pdf/repo...
It's from the International Energy Agency and it is recent (which is important, because commercial PV technology is evolving rapidly).
I also presume there's CO2 costs involved in manufacturing solar cells that aren't present in normal shingles.
Although as a counterpoint, after getting a hybrid car, I'm not really making extra trips, even though it is saving me about $150 a month in gas. But that is more due to time budget than anything else.
You think this happens with modern panels? Even low estimates put the EROI at something more like 4, with other people figuring 15-20 (of course it depends on where they are installed. EROI is better in Phoenix than Seattle).
Carbon neutral isn't even in the ballpark of highest priorities given ALONE how difficult this first step is. Carbon neutral will be the obvious next goal in ~1 decade when EV cars, home batteries, and solar panels are more commonplace.
Going for carbon neutral now is equivalent to over investing in solar panels 2-3 decades ago.
Computers, TVs, washing machines etc are increasingly using less power. I think there are limits to how much we can waste. E.g. when food prices drops to half we don't buy twice as much food.
Or say, invent self-driving cars...
Now, self driving cars could get us closer to that 2200 cars an hour figure, but there is so much pent up demand for a magical faster option (latent demand) that when those marginal efficiency gains occur, there will be a flood of new vehicular traffic on the roads that will fully negate said efficiency gains, and likely exacerbate said issues since the tolerance for time spent in traffic will significantly increase for autonomous vehicle owners due to being able to do another task while your car drives for you.
Has Elon Musk publicly addressed this issue at all?
Self-driving cars are inevitable, so they may as well be electric. But if Tesla pulls the industry into the self-driving age before the majority of cars are electric they could actually be doing more harm than good. Perhaps self-driving cars should be required to be electric.
(1) multi-modal mass transit/car mixing becomes more attractive.
(2) transit can optimize for high-frequency mini/microbus formats rather than least-number-of-employed-drivers. this is less optimal from road-occupation POV but can be a win if it makes more people actually use transit?
(3) required parking space drastically decreases. Reaping the benefits will take a LONG time, but we'll be able to go back to denser cities?
Building a freeway or expanding it actually creates more traffic, since it lowers the cost of driving (time & gas) and when building a new freeway you actually create new traffic flows in unexpected ways. Building extra lanes actually causes more cars than those lanes could ever conceivably handle to pour onto the roadway due to the latent demand [1], and the most viable path forward is to create other avenues for said latent demand for transport to be serviced.
Ideally, you will build better mass transit infrastructure, with a sizable light rail network and feeder bus lines in the suburbs. Traffic will not get better due to this in any way, shape or form, but it will lessen the number of additional cars that end up traversing the streets every year, and prevent some additional load.
What this will do though is prevent your local economy from strangling itself in its own traffic, since your community is now providing more than one transport option. The only enemy of transit is density in the US, where we require massive swaths of land be set aside for unused parking that ultimately severely disadvantages every mode of transport, since it forces cities to be more spread out and dense construction to be very costly (underground parking construction costs are insane vs building above ground sqft).
[1] - https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
or the inverse: "why should I feel guilty for my consumption since consuming resources is required to be alive?"
My preference these days would be for a metal roof.
There is another good reason for our love affair with iron - we get a lot of earthquakes. An iron roof provides a lot of structural bracing, and it's negligible weight provides much less moment than slate or tile alternatives.
Wood shingles rot, are slippery when moldy, are an ideal habitat for wasps, burn, and generate a demand for old growth cedar (i.e. not sustainable).
My father's business is roofing. His client once ordered dog booth made from corrugated metal. Even dog hated it during the rain.
Metal roofs are light, long lasting, do not support insects, and don't burn.
http://news.energysage.com/congress-extends-the-solar-tax-cr...
The tesla car itself could count as well, but felt less "design driven" imo. If this fails, everyone will call it obviously due to bad tech. If it succeeds, I'd say it was because the tech was barely sufficient to keep up with the excellent luster.
On a side note, I wonder whether or not the heavy government subsidies will be forgotten in the lore of clean tech, just like silicon valley seems to have forgotten the complete and utter reliance on government funding in it's infancy(or possibly even today)
The government is literally just US....it's our money and a collection of individuals from among us who we've appointed to handle the general administration of us and the space we take up.
Why should American entrepreneurs, particularly ones doing such an outstanding job of moving technology in a positive direction, not get our financial support (a.k.a. the government's support)?
Who exactly is losing out when we support our own business initiatives with our own money?
(the one that isn't is individuals voluntarily giving money to things where the benefit is shared by all)
One valid argument against government aid is market distortion. One example of abuse is farming, where subsidies create a system(as far as I understand at least) where those that have enough land to tick of all subsidies have an edge over smaller farms (in addition to scaling), leading to consolidation and effectively paying land magnates with tax money.
A different aspect(more specific) is that maybe solar is just not ready and should fail, and only the subsidies make it viable, meaning people will have "junk" on their roofs without Solarcity to maintain it if the subsidies fade. However, that argument is only valid to me if coal/oil does not get subsidies currently, which I doubt
I think the primary problem of government funding is waste and the potential for corruption. Waste because the government is more immune to profit motive and thus can throw good money after bad for a long time. Corruption because you need to convince some bureaucrats v. all your customers (or whoever the market needs). The flip side is that, done well, you can get things done that no business could get done on its own.
So, if Tesla/cleantech succeeds, nobody will remember government funding as some sort of attenuation or 'asterisk' on the win: it was getting the industry over a hump, but into self-sustaining success. Win all around. The problem is if the government support ends up propping up business models that have no hope of actually being viable when that support goes away.
If cleantech ends up failing, then the government backing that which couldn't succeed in the free market will be remembered. But it's all a tradeoff: we're not going to be perfect every time and should be prepared to accept some misses if we think bootstrap government funding of promising but currently non-viable products is a worthy allocation of taxpayer money.
EDIT: sibling comment has great additional point about market distortion being a problem too.
Definitely contentious. A more correct formulation is "government is just the word for the things we are forced to do together"
It's also what a small left-leaning majority says to defend themselves and shut up their detractors while they inflict their will on the minority over an issue that's contentious (e.g. our recent health care reform).
And you'll notice that when legislation they don't like appears, you'll hear remarks to the effect of "that is not who we are!" (the standard obviously being relaxed when a government does something the speaker disagrees with).
> Dude, grow up
QED. Thanks, dude.
Not saying its a rosy picture to live in an area with no publicly owned infrastructure, or any baseline public services like water, sewer, trash, education, courts, etc, but there are places in Latin America which have legal carveouts for a non-governmentally controlled area to exist, without taxes, laws or infrastructure.
Unless you are willing to live & fight for your beliefs, they are absolutely worthless, Martin Luther King & Cesar Chavez didn't accomplish anything sitting at home, they took to the streets and organized like minded people to stand with them and fight for the way things ought to be, regardless what businesses or government tried to do.
Example: one could characterize investment in cleantech as hedge fund-like speculation (other example: US monetary policy), albeit with the dividends paid to the American economy (and some larger proportion to Tesla etc shareholders). I think reasonable people can disagree over whether that is an appopriate action for a government to take (i.e. whether it is in their purview/mandate) separate from whether other issues are (utilities, defense, welfare, etc). A rejection of one is not a rejection of all, and similarly support for one is not support for all.
(Speaking generally: I don't know the specific views of perilunar or fennecfoxen)
It's easy to look at Tesla and SpaceX and see a couple winning tickets in the "give money for technology" lottery, but they are not the only tickets our government has purchased. Consider all the other entrepreneurs who are doing an outstanding job of not so much moving technology in any direction at all but rather lining their pockets while cratering their industry's reputation, or those that make reasonable attempts with interesting but ultimately impractical innovations.
The people who object are generally objecting to the playing of the lottery itself. The most commonly proposed alternative is that these companies should earn the money by providing value in the market or convince investors (who have powerful financial incentives to get it right) that they can do so, rather than by convincing a relatively few laypeople with no real skin in the game to risk other people's money on them.
Pre-emptive disclaimer: yes, I know I've not mentioned any of the opposing arguments here. My purpose in writing this is solely to explain some of the key points (including some of the emotional appeals) in this particular side of this particular debate.
That way, these large foreign oil companies like BP (owned by Britan's public employee retirement funds) and Royal Dutch Shell can make a ton more dough while also raising prices by a few bucks in the domestic gas & natural gas market.
Even if it's something as straightforward as "green credits", the process can always be perverted to advantage one business over another.
Some good ideas need a bump through the 'chicken and egg' stage.
Except one ingredient is missing: most people cannot afford one, even if they tried really hard.
$500 is not that much more expensive than a Nokia device at the time, and well within the surplus that a good chunk of people have to pay - especially when subsidized by carriers.
$30 000 - $100 000 - is another ballpark entirely in terms of cost. And it has to work out economically or it won't get anywhere, many ingredients are needed to make it work right.
And then the economies of scale (and hopefully competition) will kick in and it should reach a point where nearly every new house, and nearly every replacement roof, will be solar by default. At least in climates friendly to solar.
IPhone got a lot of attention when it was released, but it was a while before they became common with more than just the early adopter crowd. This might take a while longer for various reasons, but still, this is a big deal.
This has an interesting twist. While it is subtle, people can tell you have it. People like to impress their neighbors. But this one isn't just "look how much money I have" but "look how I am using my money to be a responsible citizen of the planet." If you are going to try to enter the "keep up with the Jones's" race, this isn't a bad way to go about it.
I think this is key - often the pitch that "sure, it's expensive up front but will save you money in the long run" falls on deaf ears when people don't have the disposable income to immediately absorb that large up front cost, but when you're buying a house in most cases you're already taking out a large loan to finance a big up-front cost.
The advantage, of course, is the 0/low upfront costs.
Whether or not this model works for the roof tile system is another question entirely. Of course, the bill would be much larger, but the tax credit might be larger as well.
I'm not sure how they handle a circumstance in which your income causes your tax credit to be phased out. Likely there's fine print where you have to pony up extra money.
Relative to the benchmark of "People who can afford to buy a home in the US," perhaps a solar roof is not so unattainable. It just has to look great, convey social status, and be durable.
Most US home owners don't pay for their house (or car) outright. The putative purchase price of photovoltaic panels may not be prohibitive even for plebs.
High end models few can afford at first, then slowly moving into the "regular guy" market once the R&D is done and mass production bottlenecks are solved.
And factoring in subsidies, electricity cost savings over a period 5-10 years, it might be more affordable than you think.
Gas has 25% taxes where I live. Surely that's the opposite of 'subsidizing' it (vs, for example, electricity which is taxed at 5%).
What am I missing?
- Strategic Petroleum Reserve - LIHEAP - exemption for farm vehicles on fuel
See more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surp...
Some people construe foreign military adventures such as Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003 as oil subsidies. Without those, oil markets would be less stable, and consequently oil would be much less attractive as a fuel.
The tax is over 200% in most of the European Union, yet still doesn't fully cover the cost of roads and the external effects of pollution.
Some countries also subsidise it, such as by paying for prospecting or research.
However - I suggest this won't work out like the iPhone.
Why?
Because --> 'new roofs' are not built that often, by that I mean new homes and roofing replacements. And the construction industry has totally different dynamics.
Putting on a 'regular' new roof is expensive. Most people won't consider this tech unless their home is up for a new roof. The other market would be new homes.
So there's a growth/market limit.
Second is price. This kind of technology exists already in many forms. It hasn't been adopted because it's very expensive, and requires some other ugly equipment that has put a drag on PV installation like the conversion technology required to connect to the grid.
The choice to purchase an iPhone is mostly emotional.
The choice in roofing is not. It's definitely mostly a calculation. They are very expensive, and people will look into the long-term conversion value etc.
I'll wager that this new Tesla roof will not be price competitive for current solar/roofing situations, moreover, even if it were - it still might not make sense from a dollars perspective, as the current solar/roof installations basically don't work out economically. It's for wealthier types and/or those with 'green aspirations'.
Finally - these are not things you can buy from wallmart and install yourself. You can't even get your local roofer to do it. Typically, roofers have to be trained on the materials, installation etc.. There is the issue of warranty and distribution for 'new tech' in building - which is slow to adoption. Builders etc. are not 'magpies' like techies. They are averse to new gear, and typically wait for others to figure it out before buying in. Also - they simply tend not to be ver progressive.
Go and ask your local builder if he wants to send his crew to California for 'Training on Tesla's new roof' and his mental calculation will be 'how many of my current customers are asking for it'? And of course the answer will be none.
The fundamental issue with all of this solar tech is that it simply does not generate enough electricity to quite warrant the cost unless all the conditions are right.
+ If it's really sunny a lot + Major government subsidies + A new subdivision was created with 'all solar roofing' thereby keeping the costs down to economies of scale + High electricity prices in the region + The grid is fundamentally designed for renewables
etc. etc.
It takes a lot of the right ingredients.
One thing where I don't agree:roofs being an unemotional decision. Everything is influenced by emotions. All Solarcity has to do isb make it at least feasible for everyone price wise, then having the combination of the (apparently very fancy) French something style+the feeling you are a part of the solution for the planet+the tesla allure will do the rest for a suitable percentage of the market. That is iff the numbers work out enough to not make it an unreasonable choice.
The iphone would have failed at 1500 say. But 500 was barely cheap enough for what people got and felt they got to be worth it.
iPhone was a platform. As more people bought the iphone,
- the phone became more attractive to 3rd party accessory makers (protective cases, cables, etc) and apps makers.
- the phone itself became more valuable to owners, as more complementary products became available.
- the phone became more valuable to Apple, who could get feedback and make the phone better.
The hockey stick on the analogous factors for Tesla is much shallower. The "complementary products" for owners of cars will be primarily recharge stations. Still few and far between.
There is no benefit to 3rd parties, that I see. No benefit to other stakeholders like utilities. And Tesla itself does not enjoy a growing, self-reinforcing cycle of value, as sales increase. It's really just economies of scale.
Electric motorcycle or RV for the weekend or electric lawn mower. Just throwing it out there.
Source? Roofs last 20-30 years. 125 million homes in the U.S., with roofs being replaced every 25 years means 5 million roofs per year. Triple that for Europe, China, and the rest and you've got 15 million a year. It's a big ticket item so you don't have to capture that much of the market to start hitting pretty serious revenue numbers.
In Europe (or at least the parts I've been in) roofs last much more than that. At least twice as long. Esp in countries like mine (Spain) where climate is much less aggressive with rooftops. And we don't use tar shingles.
Rumor mill has it that SC has been struggling, and the recent buyout from Tesla makes it look like Musk is transferring cash to himself.
Musk talks alot, and I'm still on the fence as to whether this is vaporware meant to distract from that.
It wasn't a rumor. Solar City was publicly traded and the struggles were documented.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/09/eve...
There are lots of upsides for future research and gained efficiency in the future though. Especially as electric moves toward big trucks down the road. (a semi full of solar panels could probably help propel the truck and save fuel etc.)
I'm a 'comments first' reader myself but TFAs are generally a must read for context and disambiguation before actually wading in.
"0 sq feet available for solar panels Based on 3D modeling of your roof and nearby trees"
2000 hours of usable sunlight a year.
4664 sq ft available for panels.
Total 20 year savings: $1,000.
Seems... underwhelming.
Oh, this is for a lease.
$2,000 if you have to borrow to install the panels. Still... $100/yr?
The only worthwhile benefit is you can afford to pay $21,000 out of pocket.
1873 hours of usable sunlight 1561 sqft available for panels (ain't no Cave Creek mansion!) $9000 savings.
I left my electric bill at the default $100 estimate, which is close enough. They only defaulted to 3.5kw system for me, I assume based on my electric costs. 247 sqft. Maybe your costs were too low. There's no way an electric bill on a cave creek mansion is $100/mo. Their rates are lower, but the A/C will kill you. Once I moved the slider to $500/mo it estimates $89,000 savings, for example.
I like the concept, but it has that Beta(tm) feel to it...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/radiative-coolin...
Solar 'Sorb(TM) -- The revolutionary shade technology which keeps you cooler in the summer and warmer in winter. Innovative "cell" technology is at the heart of the Solar 'Sorb system. Proprietary nanotechnology utilizes clean solar energy, water and air to fill your yard with beautiful fractal-inspired spires, that not only look great, but save you money. And there is no complicated setup or programming. The Solar 'Sorb keeps track of the seasons by monitoring the length of day, and adjusts it shade profile to match. Some of the features included in each base model :
Seasonally Adjusted Shade
Evaporative Cooling
Low Annual Maintenance
Provides shelter for fauna
Wind resistant
Limited Lifetime Warranty
You can purchase fully functioning Solar 'Sorb units at one of our many worldwide distributors, or the do-it-yourselfer can order our starter kit pods direct from the factory. StarterPods(R) unfold gradually after installation and provide shade generation precisely where you need it.
Solar 'Sorb is a strong advocates for the environment, and that's why all of our products are certified "Green", and carbon neutral.
You forgot to say "carbon-based".
"Imagine this design assignment: design something that makes oxygen, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, distills water, accrues solar energy as fuel, makes complex sugars and food, creates microclimates, changes colors with the seasons, and self replicates.
Why don't we knock that down and write on it."
I have to remove them from the windows, but otherwise they are mostly maintenance free.
But my MBTF was only 10 years, the first set stopped working in the middle of the summer for no reason after almost completely covering the house, and I had to install a second one (this time with 2 spares, just in case). Luckily the first set delivered the new ones to me for free.
My roof faces East-West, my wall is to the South.
Does that mean I get a perfect peak output during the middle of the day? No. But my generation comes on earlier and off later than friends with perfectly aligned systems - which without a powerwall (sadly don't have one yet) that is a benefit expanding the amount of time that I am generating usable power and saving A$0.25c/kWh instead of earning $0.06/kWh for exporting it at peak generation. (fair that in this context we're looking at potentially having a power wall too, but never the less - you lose round-trip efficiency on batteries - about 10% - it's likely to end up fully charged anyway depending on your daytime usage and thus extending your generation time might still be good).
I have 3.5kW of panels (3kW inverter, the max I can get on a single phase supply) and hit about 2.75kW peak generation . I wouldn't mind adding another panel or two per string (on my particular inverter and due to having two parallel strings, it works out fine for the voltages.. but this can vary a lot depending on your system specifications)
</end of not totally scientific ranting>
But also - seriously, the aesthetics. My suburb (Baldivis, Western Australia) has one of the top solar penetrations in the entire country at 57% of all houses (you can see here, it's 5th on the list: http://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-top-solar-states-and-s...) -- and while they're not exactly drop dead UGLY - it sure would be prettier with roofs like this everywhere. Particularly here we have a lot of smaller houses in orientations which mean often they end up being street facing instead of not. So yeah. Not sure how much of a greenhouse effect your roof is going to end up with though, that will be interesting. (here, we have predominantly tile or tin roofing - this shingle like stuff is much less common here than other parts of the world from what I've gathered)
If this can be competitive with traditional roofing and have a longer life expectancy, I'd buy in a heartbeat.
It has the potential to displace thousands of tons of asphalt shingles per year with the equivalent of recyclable glass, which is pretty fantastic. The embodied energy of production for the tar hydrocarbons in current roofing materials are pretty nasty, and they don't just disappear when they wear out.
You can already get a $0 electricity bill without having full roof solar.
I can't see it being anything but a waste of money for the practical consumer.
I believe Mr Musk argues that, with the greatly lowered electric bill and more durable roof, the solar roof is a cheaper proposition after 20 years.
a 93-square-metre (1,000 sq ft) white roof will offset 10 tons of carbon dioxide over its 20-year lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(geoengine...
Well I was going to be astonished, but Google and Wikipedia seem to tell me US roofs are a consumable and usually asphalt!
Most UK roofs are tile, slate if older, and asphalt shingles reserved for sheds, garden structures etc. Tile lifespan should be 60+ years.
As much as I like the improved aesthetics I don't see the tiles making much dent in the UK apart from new builds. For exising build the UK approach to solar has been to slap panels on a frame over the existing roof. Sadly there are no planning restrictions on bad taste.
eg http://www.prescientpower.co.uk/sites/default/files/imagecac...
Also, I grew up in the Northeast. Snow slides right off steel roofing. It sticks to shingles, especially if you have any ice build-up. Unless you have a relatively steep roof pitch, you have to get up on the roof in the winter and clear the snow off. With steel, you wait for a warmer day, and it slides on its own.
We don't really have any of the "shingle" type stuff. The "Tuscan" glass tile from the Tesla event is the closest looks to the most common tiles here.
Corrugated iron rusts out, but it has a pretty long lifespan.
The bigger issue is in many areas you are restricted in what roof material you can use - lots of locations limit you to tiles only.
Asphalt for the better quality sheds, corrugated iron for the lower quality sheds:-) Typical UK roof lifespan I've been quoted is around 50 years (I know because our roof is starting to need replacing and was last replaced in the 1970s).
> As much as I like the improved aesthetics I don't see the tiles making much dent in the UK
Actually there is one area in the UK where they may make an impact - conservation areas. The stricter ones prohibit solar panels on street-facing roofs, but may conceivably allow the solar tiles. Plus I suspect that those who live in conservation areas are more likely to be Tesla customers already.
Great point about conservation areas, never occured to me. The slate looking one is convincing enough for the national parks. The unique pattern printing should appeal to the most fussy NIMBY. Shame they won't last 150 yrs like slate.
An expensive roof would be a mistake, even if it can last 1000 years, because you will still need to replace it within 10 years.
cite?
source - owned a roof cleaning company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shingle
Solar shingles, also called photovoltaic shingles, are solar panels or solar modules designed to look like and function as conventional roofing materials, such as asphalt shingle or slate, while also producing electricity. Solar shingles are a type of solar energy solution known as building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV).
There are several varieties of solar shingles, including shingle-sized solid panels that take the place of a number of conventional shingles in a strip, semi-rigid designs containing several silicon solar cells that are sized more like conventional shingles, and newer systems using various thin-film solar cell technologies that match conventional shingles both in size and flexibility. There are also products using a more traditional number of silicon solar cells per panel reaching as much as 100 watts DC rating per shingle.[1]
Solar shingles are manufactured by several companies[2] but the two main manufacturers of solar roof shingles are Dow and CertainTeed.[3] Other active companies in the US include SunTegra Solar Roof Systems,[4] and Atlantis Energy Systems (asphalt and slate systems),[5]
Unisolar went bankrupt a few years ago....
Part of the reason he can do that is that he's charismatic (in his own way), resourceful, and driven.
Part of the reason he can do that is that "it's time" with the price of oil and the progress of technology and regulation.
The same sort of thing is true for SpaceX, Tesla cars, and now Tesla solar.
There was buzz about this months ago.
Are there existing solar shingles that look like conventional roofs? Otherwise, maybe that was what made those solar shingles fail to find a market.
To my view and taste, asphalt shingles are pretty ugly; the pictured solar shingles don't look particularly better but they don't look any worse.
Thoughts?
Firstly, they look taped on. We clearly see that there are normal tiles underneath, giving the same impression that a piece of cloth would have if a hole in it had been fixed by stitching a completely different piece of cloth on it.
Secondly, they are not properly aligned at the edge. It might be a bit OCD, but I wouldn't expect my wooden parquetry to stop before reaching the wall.
Thirdly, they are reflective. Reflection is great for things you don't want people to look at, like the toilet door (put a mirror on it) or the Oracle HQ. Nobody wants their home to be a huge mirror, if only because the sun gets painfully reflected to you.
One and three I can see, I figure two could just be quality of installation - other types of shingles could be installed mis-aligned too.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it's true. It might not jump out at me, but that is indeed just me.
I think it's more about using the places where the sun shines the most (look at the third before/after photo in that page). Tesla roofs on the other side will have non-solar shingles that look exactly the same.
Either it was a dumb install, or those "shingles" aren't really roofing material.
Solar panels on cars are another option. I used to think that was a bad idea, considering that an electric vehicle uses vastly more power than solar panels could ever hope to generate. Then I thought about my own driving patterns; On a typical work day, I drive about three miles to work, park in the sun for 8 hours, and then drive three miles home. With an electric vehicle and a solar panel on the roof, I might not even have to plug it in except on long trips. Even if that wasn't true, if a solar panel could save me, say, 10 full charges per year, it's probably worth a little extra weight and cost.
It's the first Tesla product where I've thought to myself "wow, I really want that" and I hope that I'll have a roof like this at some point. However I remain skeptical that the efficiency when taking into account to the manufacturing inputs and compared to a standard roof solar install will make sense.
I do think it's incredibly important to make technologies superficially acceptable to gain mass adoption. That's where I believe this stands above the alternatives, let's hope it pans out.
Disclaimer: I'm super excited about SpaceX (well, space in general), I'm not all that bothered about the Tesla car range, though I hope they release something I like at some point.
They said they're producing plain tiles without panels inside for edge pieces and north/east/west roof faces.
* http://www.topnotchgenconstruction.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
It's just one more example of why discounting Elon might be a bad idea.
If only I had bought tesla a few years ago ...
I literally haven't seen my panels since the last time I went up on the roof. Granted, this depends a lot on how steep your roof is, but the appearance of the panels did really not go into our decision to install them.
Why not? What on earth are you doing up there that this is such a problem.
My roof is an open, unused space over the house. I will be looking into putting solar panels up there in a few years.
The one downside I can see is that HOAs may require the new kind of solar roof, even for those homeowners who would have preferred the old black rectangles (which would presumably be cheaper). Rules about what an HOA can and can't demand will of course vary by jurisdiction.
It can also be fitted with heating elements to melt snow in colder climates
(not quite "run current through", but ...)
Up until recently a lot of standard pieces of equipment weren't practical for HVDC lines. Electrical breakers, for instance: They existed, but tended to have short lifespans. That's because DC lines never go to zero power, whereas AC lines do so a hundred times per second.
Modern technology has changed that. The equipment is still more expensive, but that would be made up for by the reduced transmission losses... if we were starting from scratch. We're not.
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588104-humble-...
Most DC installations are <50v to take advantage of existing DC powered gear and circuits under ~50v don't need a licensed electrician to do the work (in most locations).
And if we do, we MUST make it a standard voltage and plug between countries.
or is it that such a cover gets dirty and not-so-transparent faster than the original top layer?
I'm guessing this must be something already being considered, so what am I missing?
Asphalt roofs are inexpensive. Given that hail-damaged asphalt roofs keep getting replaced with asphalt roofs, I have to think it's some kind of market/regulation/short-term-profit thing.
It's probably more efficient to replace the entire roof at once, and insurers would almost certainly prefer the entire roof to be the same age, but asphalt does have some advantages for situations in which nearly every storm tears up just a few shingles.
More likely a glass roof is a net negative that has to be offset by the solar cells, making them less cost effective than otherwise.
Tying to beat those materials out on functionality, cost, reliability, and longevity is a tall order, to be sure. Mixing in the ability to grab the sun's energy and use it to power your home and mechanicals and devices is a compelling option. But because electricity is electricity is electricity (To most people) the economics of this are going to be absolutely key.
Whereas the iPhone really did bring significant usability innovations to people's lives, as in the ability to do new and useful things that were previously harder or more annoying in the past, this type of roof doesn't necessarily provide more functionality. Though the heated roof certainly could be useful in cold climates. But again, I think that the economics are going to be very critical to seeing wider adoption for this.
Question: how would I complain to Bloomberg about this?
You can see the panels but they're not actively ugly, which seems a good compromise. This seems like more a Tesla level solution, where you're paying a premium but it's better than a normal roof. The ones near me are the GM Bolt solution, where it's about as aesthetically pleasing as any other generic home and are priced accordingly. It's probably good to have solutions at multiple price points though.
Thus at least 5% of the total roofing market in existing residential houses, is a potential customer each year.
- by making mirror roofs that bounce as much light as possible back towards the sky (therefore not trapping heat, and reducing the need for A/C in the summer);
- or by using heat-trapping solar roofs that produce electricity but act as heat-sinks and require more A/C usage in the summer?
And what about shingles that go from mirror to black from summer to winter, to decrease the need of winter heating as well as summer A/C?
What if we take in account the amount of CO2 needed to manufacture the solar roof?
Alright, fine, how long until Tesla launches satellite power systems?
Heck I barely do!
I guess panels are still an option, though it would be nice to never worry about the roof again :)
I'd probably consult with the solar folks before getting your roof redone though. You'll probably save money if you make sure the roofers and the solar installers are coordinating correctly before either goes to work.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/pvrw2010_wohlgemuth_s...
Most typical failures are thermomechanical fatigue and chemical breakdown of encapsulant and backsheet materials. Musk said that these are made of quartz (vitreous silica?) which has a very low coefficient of thermal expansion and should reduce thermomechanical fatigue on connections. By all appearances these are glass on both sides, no backsheet polymer layer, hence no backsheet breakdown possible. These small modules are going to be more robust against mechanical damage than modules with larger surface areas.
Both Silevo and Panasonic* base their cell technology on n-type monocrystalline silicon, which exhibits negligible light induced degradation over time (an optoelectronic effect which can gradually reduce efficiency of more common p-type cells). The glass-all-around design also eliminates the chances of potential induced degradation. The median degradation rate for crystalline silicon PV modules as a group is only 0.5% per year (meaning 86% of original rated output after 30 years) and these modules look like they can achieve significantly lower degradation rates than that. Poor execution can ruin any concept, of course, but these really look like they could work for several decades.
*SolarCity acquired PV startup Silevo and originally intended to ramp the technology up to gigawatt manufacturing scale in a new factory in Buffalo, NY. More recently they've stated that Panasonic will run the Buffalo factory and the cell tech will be some kind of blend between Panasonic and Silevo; both companies' cell technology are based on heterojunction cell designs on n-type monocrystalline silicon substrates.
There's been an aesthetic problem with mixing solar and non-solar shingles, because the colors didn't quite match. But that was mostly because solar shingles were a retrofit, not original equipment, and not an entire roof replacement.
In fact the article even states "Like previous attempts at solar shingles..."
I've been joking with my family that someone will come out with solar shingles in the next few years.
Obvious!
Let's rephrase that headline. "No one to whom a lazy journalist named Tom Randall spoke saw Tesla's Solar Roof Coming."
The headline is about the specific Tesla Solar Roof, not the general idea of a Tesla solar roof.