Hacker News Reader

Comment by blakesterz | Hacker News Reader

Yikes. I just signed a contract for a new roof here last month, it's going to cost about $12k. Just did the estimate for the Tesla Solar roof... $80,300, so $87k if I want the battery too. I can barely afford the $12 right now, the $80 is just so far over it's not even close, even with how much I save over the years in electricity.

That being said, I love these things, so hoping it gets cheaper in the coming years.

View on HN

I don't really see the selling point, or value here.

Tesla's calculator estimates $40,500 for a roof that generates half our power needs, and should provide $20,400 worth of energy over 30-years.

Add in a PowerWall and federal tax credit, and I'm still losing $15,400 over 30-years.

If I put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000.

To put it in another perspective, the last estimates I got for a solar system that covered 100% of our average power needs came in at $32,000 installed, before the same $11K tax credit that Tesla includes in their calculations.

So, I could pay under $20,000 for a "traditional" solar system that covered 100% of our energy bills, or $40,000 for a Tesla solar roof that covered 50% of our energy bills.

That's quite literally half the value, at twice the price.

If I put in a traditional solar system tomorrow, it would pay for itself in year 9. If I put in a Tesla solar roof tomorrow, I'd still be out $15K at year 30.

> Tesla's calculator estimates $40,500 for a roof that generates half our power needs, and should provide $20,400 worth of energy over 30-years.

This depends quite strongly on where you are. Your numbers are very close to the ones I get if I use my correct address, which is in the Puget Sound area of Washington State.

If I keep everything the same except the address, changing that to one in Merced, California, then it says I'd get $75000 worth of energy over 30 years.

PS: it looks like they try to use the address for more than just finding the location in order to estimate how much sun is available. I tried an address that I had lived at in Pasadena, California, and it did not ask me for the house size and number of floors. Instead, it did the calculation using about 6000 sq ft, which is about the size of the apartment building that is at that address. For my Seattle-area and Merced addresses, it did ask me for the house information.

They are using Google's Project Sunroof[1] to do the modeling. The tool uses satellite images of your roof to create the estimates, and accounts for orientation, shading from trees, etc...

[1] https://www.google.com/get/sunroof

That's amazing. Just seriously amazing.

Funny enough, it was someone's side project at Google.

So was Maps, originally. This is why there's so many fans of the 20% project concept.

A distributed file sharing system (later known as the Internet) was Tim Behrners Lee's side project at CERN for a while too :)

He was only allowed to take his 20% project to 100% after his manager wrote up a justification XD

> later known as the Internet

My turn to be pedantic, I guess, but 80 and 443 are only two of many available ports. The internet is much bigger than just the web, even if lots of people never bother to look beyond their browser.

Pedantry is fine by me when accurate and done in the spirit of learning more nuance about a subject :)

An important clarification

If you ever get to go to Geneva, swing by the CERN exhibit. There's the original fileserver, complete with 'This machine is a server. DO NOT POWER DOWN!!' scrawled on tape stuck over the power button. There's also his paper describing the WWW with the feedback of his manager written across the top: "vague but interesting...".

It's kind of comforting to know that my academic and computing experiences thus far are shared both across the globe and across decades.

Haha "vague but interesting".

Isn't it amazing how big of a disconnect there is between "people who are capable of identifying/executing on big ideas" (aka Tim and his manager)....

and "the projects that businesses/agencies want their employees to do"

Especially when, in hindsight, it's anything but vague.

To be pedantic, he wrote "Vague, but exciting". See http://info.cern.ch/Proposal.html for more info.

Sorry to be a pedant but Maps is not a 20% project, it was an acquisition of a company called Where 2 Technologies. Google Earth was also an acquisition (Keyhole).

GMail however is a 20% project. :)

I'll totally use this when making my next house purchase.

What makes you think that? I'm a little skeptical because Sunroof doesn't cover my address, but I have no problem getting an estimate.

They have a link to sunroof below their estimate. Not sure what happens if you aren't covered by sunroof, but their are a ton of solar estimation tools out there that will give you a rough idea of your potential just based on lat/lon.

Random number generator, I guess. :)

Your electricity is probably a lot cheaper in Washington also and I'm assuming they have local rate information to factor in. Electricity is very expensive in California especially if you use PG&E since they use a tiered rate structure that goes from .12 - .50 cents. And very little of your usage is actually in that 12 cent tier for most people. In states like that I would imagine your solar roof could potentially pay for itself.

Seems off. Seattle gets 1/3rd the sunlight of California.

>If I put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000.

Are you doing the math all in present dollars? Because the return is 7% after inflation but >10% before. So you'd have >500.000 in 2047 dollars. In this case it's important to do that adjustment because you're doing an investment upfront for payoffs over 30 years so the value of money adjustment is extremely important. It should only make your case stronger though if you haven't done that yet.

Energy prices, and thus savings, are certain to increase over that 30 years too. Quite likely at a rate exceeding inflation.

Energy prices have been mostly flat relative to inflation for 40 years, and there's a reasonably good chance that they will start dropping appreciably (at least during peak daylight hours) as solar continues to make major inroads.

That's true in a lot of places but not really in California, where there's a lot of customers for solar. I don't need to go into the reasons why. It's California.

Why so? California's climate is pretty optimal for solar generation and there's a lot of desert waiting to be covered in solar panels.

Solar is not going to have a similar impact on (say) Ireland in the next 30 years.

More solar will likely result in higher grid energy prices, since people will buy a lot less energy while the grid costs the same to maintain.

Solar can also reduce grid costs, by e.g. shaving the yearly peak power demand, which is usually a summer afternoon so it's not clear cut.

Probably the bigger impact is bad incentives for the people building the grid, who are often able to do what they like and get a guaranteed percentage return on top, which pushes them to spend more than they need to. This has been particularly pronounced in Australia I believe.

Usually when there is additional competition (grid owners generate and supply electricity), markets respond by dropping prices.

This might also be why utility companies have been furiously lobbying against rooftop solar subsidies and Barclays have downgraded US utility bonds.

Solar leases use the 2% inflation rate too as a way to make them look more attractive (as does the solar roof calculator) but in reality electricity hasn't been getting more expensive at that rate.

People made similar pronouncements about gasoline a decade ago. $4/g gas is a distant memory.

Not clear on the historic evidence, and especially not clear when you consider people swapping cap ex for op ex.

Increasing renewable energy sources and an abundance of fossil fuels is going to increase energy prices at a rate higher than inflation? I don't think so.

The case can be made even stronger if the consumer's efficiency gap is taken into account.

For example from "Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy policies by Marilyn A. Brown" we read:

"Meier and Whittier (1983) studied a case in which consumers were given a choice in stores throughout the United States of two refrigerators that were identical in all respects except two: energy efficiency and price. The energy-efficient model (which saved 410 kilowatt hours per year, more than 25% of energy usage) cost $60 more than the standard model. The energy-efficient model was highly cost-effective in almost all locations of the country. In most regions, it provided an annual return on investment of about 50%. In spite of these favorable economics, which were easily observed by the purchaser, more than half of all purchasers chose the inefficient model. The higher purchase price of the efficient model was presumably the principal barrier to its purchase."

An annual ROI of 50% is left on the table because people have to pay something upfront for benefits later!

Tesla's pricing strategy here is quite blunt. They hope people don't care about the costs, only the looks and the sustainability.

Disclaimer: I don't know how sustainable the manufacturing process of this solution is.

looks and clique value. never underestimate pretentiousness. you can use this to get people to do good things

I would assume (hopefully) that the following is true: my guess is that Tesla is currently executing a similar plan to produce solar products in the same format they produced the cars - expensive, high end up front. Roll your moderate price, high end products with the income, rinse and repeat.

I think if this is the case, they certainly don't want to hint at it incase they lose consumers who will sit back and wait for the cheaper option they ironically wouldn't arrive.

A 7% yield is an overly optimistic number.

Not really. VTSMX has delivered that over 20 years.

Thats the historical average.

Though the market is expensive now resulting in a lower expected return going forward.

You're not deducting income tax on the dividends.

Or they're putting it in a tax-advantaged account.

If you expect either 7% real returns or 10% nominal returns from the stock markets over the next few decades, you're gonna have a bad time - mostly because real interest rates in the 21st century are much lower than in the second half of the 20th.

Current expert thinking is that there is a 4% equity risk premium over cash interest rates. Current cash rates are 1% nominal or -1% real. If you are an optimist like the Fed, cash rates will rise to 3% over the long term - which gets you to 7% nominal/5% real at best.

I wasn't making a prediction on future returns just commenting on the historical returns used. For this case 5-7% should be more than enough as a comparison to the Tesla investment anyway. I'm curious about those risk premium estimates though. Any pointers or sources on where to read more about them?

> put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000.

stock market isn't a very safe investment (that is, risk is much higher than putting in a bank), you can't make a comparison against buying some equipment, which is zero risk. A closer comparison is putting the $40,000 in a bank that guarentees interest (or treasury bonds, which is also pretty much risk free like a bank) - you'd get $99,457, which is $59,457 over your initial investment.

I don't think you understand how index funds work...

There is always risk. Maybe the price of electricity changes, or the laws change, so you can't recover costs? (Look at what happened in Nevada.)

Maybe Tesla goes out of business or drops support for this product? Maybe they aren't as durable as planned? Also, a roof is part of a house which is a very illiquid investment, and there are a lot of other factors affecting the price of a house.

But, presumably people aren't buying this just as an investment. If you're going to put a lot of money into a house anyway, maybe a fancy roof isn't so bad.

Well investing in solar panels isn't either, 30 years is a lot of time for such (currently not very efficient) technology. Price of the electricity could go down significantly as current renewable or nuclear generators get improved over time, or perhaps someone will finally figure out how to do the fusion efficiently?

> you can't make a comparison against buying some equipment, which is zero risk.

Equipment isn't zero risk. It could fail and need replacement, or need dramatic repairs. Or the price of electricity could drop dramatically and your investment won't be saving you as much in electricity bills...

I live on top of a hill where we routinely get 50mph+ winds. Explain to me how roofing tiles carry zero risk.

Wait what, their estimated payback time is 60 YEARS?

This is terrible. They've gotta be just trying to snipe rich early-adopter-for-the-status types.

And whats wrong with that? A bunch of rich early-adopter-for-the-status types will get a Telsa roof, Telsa will get better at developing the technology and the price will come down, meanwhile more people are moving to renewable energy sources to power their homes which is good for the environment. Whats the downside here?

Through the tax credits, we're all paying for someone else's pet project.

Since Tesla's products are expensive, it would be a regressive tax even if we all bought enough solar panels for our needs.

The point of the tax credit is to encourage innovation.

Yes, solar roofs are a bad investment NOW, but they might be a good idea in 20 years, once all these businesses have done this research on them.

If solar roof companies are to get an indirect tax credit then:

1) It should be in exchange for preferred stock/bonds in the company; and/or

2) the tax credit should favour lower prices, not higher

> They've gotta be just trying to snipe rich early-adopter-for-the-status types.

Tesla? The company that brought you the Roadster first, then the Model S and X, and only later the Model 3? I'm shocked. ;)

yeah i know aren't these the exact people that should pay for these kinds of things? I think it's a great model. Can't wait for the model 3 version!

All the rich people that bought the expensive Teslas have used up almost all of the tax credits so the majority of model 3 buyers will be SOL

I'm thinking it's early adopters and new buildings. The Tesla roof on a newly built home may make more sense than a retrofit.

Right, noone is acknowledging SolarCity's pre-existing relationships with homebuilders. http://www.solarcity.com/commercial/homebuilders

It's going to be cheaper (marginally) to build something in at design than after.

Wouldnt increasing the tag price of your home by 15k to absorb the loss when you sell compensate? Also, in 30 years, 15k will be worth less than 15k today.

That only works if it is worth $15k to the buyer.

Plus you have to be in the market to sell in the next few years (plus accounting for depreciation and the like... roofs only last so long).

> Add in a PowerWall and federal tax credit, and I'm still losing $15,400 over 30-years.

Which you probably sink into a second layer of asphalt shingles 15-20 years in (at least up here in upstate NY where there's plenty of rain/snow). Hopefully it's not a tear-off, as that'll cost more.

It's always tearoff. A lay over is saving 2k and shortening the life of brand new roof. Always a bad idea. Unless maybe selling the house soon to a naive buyer.

In 30 years how many times will you have to redo your roof I think one of Tesla solar roofs points was that many houses in the US have to reshingle. Although I still don't think it might be worth it for you.

Shingle warranties are often 20-30 years.

Lots of houses over 100 years old out there. No reason to think a lot of houses today won't still be standing in 100 years.

roofs != houses

Houses need roofs that last. Why put a new roof on every 15-20 years if you can put one on that lasts the lifetime of the house?

Because unless you go with a metal roof that's a pipe dream.

I live in a house built in the early 1900's with the original slate tile roof still on it and it's in decent shape.

I live in a neighborhood full of slate tile roofs and tile replacement is a fairly routine occurrence. Are you positive that no tiles have been replaced in the past 100+ years?

> Houses need roofs that last. Why put a new roof on every 15-20 years if you can put one on that lasts the lifetime of the house?

Please don't seriously suggest Tesla's solar roof will last the lifetime of a house to people.

The real warranty is 30 years for power and weatherization.

Its misleading marketing speak (at best).

https://www.tesla.com/solarroof#order

> Weatherization means that there will be no water leaks or other weather intrusions during the 30 year warranty period that result from our installation.

It will almost certainly require replacing and/or serious repair long before the "lifetime of the house" is up.

Not in CO. Lots of hail damage, roofs get replaced on average around 10y mark. Also, insurance, older roof == higher premium.

Isn't the selling point aesthetics? It's very clearly not for everybody, not yet, anyways.

In Colorado it's against the laws for HOAs to ban solar systems, there are some tricks though because they can require certain roofs that you can't really put solar on. Certain tiles and 'presidential' grade roofing which typically cost more than normal shingles as it is. If you live in one of those types of places and want an energy system, then this is what you want. Honestly, I've not heard a lot of complaints about the aesthetics of a conventional solar system, in fact I think some people like it because it's really obvious looking; but if you have the funds and really value the look, then there is an option for you.

It's probably not that different from the market for a Model S vs a Honda Accord. The S is 3+x the cost of the Accord, has fewer fueling stations, can't be serviced nearly as easily, probably is less 'practical' in a handful of other ways but there are still people that buy and drive Model S Tesla cars.

Don't forget the tesla $40,500 includes a roof AND solar. To for a fair comparison you have to include the cost of roof and solar for the next year. Your mentioned other system for $20k that handles 100% of your need doesn't include the roof.

> includes a roof AND solar

...and the cost to remove your current perfectly good roof! I think I smell a bargain!

This new roof has always been pitched as a product competing with new premium roofs. It doesn't sound like that's the kind of roof you're buying.

Every thread about Tesla cars has a subthread about how irrelevant they are because they cost too much for some car buyers. Now we can look forward to every thread about Tesla roofs having a subthread about the initial product not being price-competitive for low-end roof buyers.

You got a $12K quote for tile? How long is the warranty? Remember that the 80K quote includes solar, so you'd have to add a standard solar install of the same KW capacity to your initial quote to really compare apples to apples. You'll probably still pay a premium to go with Tesla, but the no-profile solar integration and lifetime warranty really look attractive. Some people are probably willing to pay for it, similar to people willing to pay a premium for the cars.

It's totally fair to just balk at the price.

Someone that doesn't install solar can sell the home without worrying about recovering that cost.

Considering how long Tesla has been in existence and how financially leveraged Tesla is I would take discount warranty value (lifetime of house or infinity whatever comes first).

Can't project finances much more than 10 years max. At the moment cost of capital is low but that may well change in that time-frame. Things have to make sense in a decade or so also considering that this new technology that is obsoleted by incremental innovation.

Yeah there's a pretty legitimate possibility of Tesla/SolarCity collapsing if their stock had a long bad run, don't think your warranty is worth much at the back of the line in bankruptcy court.

It's definitely the lifetime of Tesla and not your house, roof, or owner.

It's not really a lifetime warranty though. If you click through to the Tesla purchasing page, there is (only) a 30 years Power Warranty and Weatherization Warranty... which in my mind renders calling it a lifetime warranty sort of silly, as the purpose of the shingles (power generation) is not covered by the lifetime portion of the warranty. 30 years still seems like a significant warranty for a product like this though.

The odds that Tesla will be around and willing to honor their warranty 25 years from now are also nowhere near 100%. Also, if you read the fine print, you will notice that the warranty will not cover the most frequent cause of roof problems - leaks in the seams.

The same can be said for your local fly-by-night roofer, but it sounds like you can buy two roofs for the price of a SolarRoof.

Also, another thing to be concerned about is whether or not you're going to be stuck in the middle of a pass-the-blame around football match between Tesla, and their subcontractors. (I guarantee you that the people installing your roof will not be Tesla employees.) In roofs, installation mistakes can cost you dearly - they are the primary cause of roof problems.

You can insure against roof damage too, it is a pretty standard part of house insurance.

You can readily buy a 30 year shingle roof. Calling it a lifetime warranty when it is no better than a common, good quality shingle roof is absurd. Metal roofs have even longer warranties.

50 year asphalt roofs are all over.

No, I just want a new roof. I wasn't planning on installing Solar. Solar was supposed to be a perk of buying the roof from Tesla...and all of this was supposed to cost as much as a roof alone.

Cite? Tesla (at the product launch) actually said it was about as much as buying a new, premium roof + electricity.

Exactly...cost was supposed to be a new premium roof (just the roof, no solar panels) and they are about 3 times more expensive than "just the roof".

Unless they meant a "new roof" as in when you build a house from scratch and you don't have rafters or anything. If you have an existing roof you are redoing every 20 years or so, then this is definitely not the cost of a "new roof".

So, which "new roof" are we talking about here?

Sorry, where'd you get a quote for, say, a "Spanish" tile roof that inexpensive? And yeah, he did say (in the launch video) that the electricity was a part of the computation.

> cost was supposed to be a new premium roof (just the roof, no solar panels)

That makes very little sense. You're making an apples to oranges comparison here. It would be absolutely impossible to pull that off. It's literally the premium roof + solar and you want it to be the same price as premium roof (thus, you want the solar hardware to cost nothing.

Only one of these generates electricity, thus saving you money and that must be included in the cost calculation in order to determine the actual cost.

> It would be absolutely impossible to pull that off

And yet it was promised by Musk. Literally "a solar roof will actually cost less than a normal roof before you even take the value of electricity into account".

Don't attack your parent poster for Musk's lies.

Not sure why you got downvoted. But the point is that if you weren't planning on solar in the first place, the long-term economics of a Tesla roof look even better. Your 30-year net cost is $12K + maintenance on the standard roof you got quoted on. Tesla is saying their 30-year net cost is -$50K or -$100K or whatever, to be paid to you in what is essentially credits against your electricity bill.

In either case, you can finance the costs. Given how Solar City usually operates, I imagine they'll roll the costs in a lease or power purchase agreement where you send them a check each month for an amount less than your current electricity bill.

I'm not saying it's the best deal around. You could come away with an even better net total by re-roofing and putting on traditional solar panels. But then you've got an uglier roof, if you care about that sort of thing -- and there are definitely people who do.

12k for asphalt shingles, or slate / terracotta / etc? They're going to be targetting people who are looking for slate or terracotta aka more expensive than asphalt shingles like most of us have. Prices likely will come down with more volume. We can hope at least!

I am not sure there are a lot of folks who will spend 70k on a roof. Even if it reduces or eliminates their electricity costs.

For this to succeed it is going to have to cost the home owner at least what a shingled roof would cost with the additional cost of the power-wall and the infrastructure that is required to to set that up. I can understand paying a slight premium but 70k?

You would be better off using a high performance insulation like spray foam, 3 pane windows, and even installing a Geo Thermal System (around 20-25k) instead of this solar roof.

Where I live $80k is a significant portion of the cost of most houses. The price will be a significant barrier to entry for houses outside of hot real estate markets.

Yeah, my brother just bought a pretty large house for $100k, but I guess people in rural North Carolina aren't the target buyer of solar roofs anyway.

I wonder on what price home would a $80k roof make sense? >$800k?

That sounds about right to me.

A roof that exceeds 10% of the purchase price is likely to push the house outside of the price range of buyers in the target market.

I know a friend of mine (who has a solar system, not quite the same) but basically got almost nothing for it. The aesthetics of a "Solar Roof" is better but I don't see it raising the value of the house by more than 10%.

I used their calculator using the estimates when I had my roof done last time, and it is just not economically feasible.

$60k roof vs. $6k roof.

Net of $12k savings over 30 years.

$60k over 30 years (adjusting for inflation in conservative investments) is easily going to hit $180k.

I have a $2M house, and I've been bitching and moaning for a year that a new roof cost us $20k.

I dunno, I'm in the Dallas/Ft Worth area, and we have abundant sunshine and I think the price is still going to be a barrier.

But like others have said... there are plenty with a lot more money than I have which will jump at this. I'm ok with that. The more wealthy folks that install these and take their load off the grid, the better.

It depends on your roof orientation and your location so ROI has a huge range.

For example if you don't have a southern facing roof then this is going to be a terrible investment. However, this is also a home improvement which means a low interest loan which has many tax advantages, remember you pay your electric bill with after tax money but you pay interest on a home loan with pre tax money. Further electricity costs increase with inflation, so your out of pocket investment may be tiny while the value of electricity generated is increasing.

South facing roofs aren't essential to solar. East-West layouts can spread the energy production out through the day and work out better overall depending on various factors such as how much you make from selling excess to the grid.

These are tiles that sit flush with your roof, east west roofs act like zero tilt panels which provide less power everywhere in the US and thus lower efficiency. Granted if it's cheap enough that's not a deal breaker, but it's always going to impact ROI.

Yeah, I balked at first, but it looks like mine (~1400 sqft 2 story house), would cost $30k, and there's a lifetime warranty on the roof. I might consider it in the long term future, but would definitely want to give it a few years and see how things pan out first. This is one of those things that I wouldn't want to be an early adopter for.

Did you take into account the 30% federal tax credit on that 30k?

EDIT: That's sort of the kicker. A regular roof does not get a 30% federal tax credit (plus possible state incentives), nor does it produce power for 30+ years, nor does it have a lifetime warranty. If you can obtain low cost financing, you almost always come out ahead.

> EDIT: That's sort of the kicker. A regular roof does not get a 30% federal tax credit (plus possible state incentives), nor does it produce power for 30+ years, nor does it have a lifetime warranty. If you can obtain low cost financing, you almost always come out ahead.

Maximizing retirement savings is still likely more cost effective than this roof for most people and I doubt many people in the US are putting away $24k/year.

The only way I'd see this is as viable is below inflation interest and people showing they can sell the houses for the full value of the Tesla roof.

> Did you take into account the 30% federal tax credit on that 30k?

If I understand the tax credit correctly, it's only available if you're paying that much in taxes otherwise. For a $60k roof, you have to already be paying $18k in taxes to take full advantage of the credit. That's an important detail for some.

The tax credit can be carried forward multiple years until your tax liability has exhausted the credit balance.

There is a button on the calculator to change your settings.

It sized my roof at more than 2x the square footage of my house.

It also estimated my monthly electric bill at 4x what I pay on a monthly basis.

Changing those numbers put them to something closer to a new roof; and is definitely competitive with putting on a new roof and then paying for a solar panel installation.

The $80k roof is especially scary if you live in an area with any type of natural disaster risk.

The area I live in just had a huge hail storm. Most roofs in our neighborhood will require repairs. That's a bummer with asphalt shingles, but it would be a lot worse with an $80k roof.

Most people won't think about those risks, but over the time period you need to consider for a roof, it's a big risk in most places.

Tesla claims their shingles are a lot more resilient than standard roofing material...

They say the glass is warrantied for the lifetime of the house, but it will be interesting to see what exclusions are in that warranty.

According to the ordering website where it says "30 years", I'd say the exclusion of t > 30 is rather extensive...

Elon posted a huge hail cannonball hitting a roof tile: https://www.instagram.com/p/BT7HVS3AZ4q/. It looks pretty resilient.

How on earth did you hit 80k? Using the calculator, the roof for a two-story 3000sqft home comes down to $50-60k, with a net gain of $5k. If your house is any larger than that, $80k is pocket change.

> Using the calculator, the roof for a two-story 3000sqft home comes down to $50-60k, with a net gain of $5k. If your house is any larger than that $80k is pocket change.

That's hardly pocket change in most of the country, where you can get a lot more sqft/$ (and potentially in a bigger, 1-story footprint) than on the west coast.

> two-story

Not everyone has a two story house. My parents live in a single story 2k square foot home and tesla estimates the cost to be $69k. I live in a 2 story house with more groundfloor space than 2nd story, and it estimates the cost at $60k

I own a two-story, 3000 sq.ft. house, budgeted to the usual percentage of total income. I assure you that $80k is not pocket change (because I didn't pay the down payment with pocket change, and even that wasn't $80k).

Doesn't the Tesla roof last substantially longer? Like maybe 2-3 times as long as asphalt ?

From the description:

        Solar Roof is the most durable roof available 
        and the glass itself will come with a warranty 
        for the lifetime of your house, or infinity,
        whichever comes first.

> Solar Roof is the most durable roof available and the glass itself will come with a warranty for the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first....

... Or 30 years. You know, whichever comes first.

Also typicallt the whole roof wouldn't have solarpanels. Only the side in the sun. And the dummy shingles will presumably be alot cheaper.

~$42 versus ~$11 per square foot (solar vs dummy tiles) per the Ars article. So depending on the amount of solar coverage you want, can get, need, you can manipulate the price a bit.

Take into account the fact that Model 3 + battery pack + roof will cost 80k-100k in 10 years. In France electricity cost almost double and fuel is 50% more expensive.

It's all flash and no substance. Elon Musk is a great salesman and marketer. I'll give him that. But just like their cars, this roof is for the wealthy people who want to look cool and earn some liberal points. It makes no financial sense for the vast majority of people.

> That being said, I love these things, so hoping it gets cheaper in the coming years.

Yep. Perhaps in the future.

> But just like their cars, this roof is for the wealthy people who want to look cool and earn some liberal points.

What does political affiliation have to do with this? People being excited about new and innovative technologies like electric cars, space travel, and solar roofs is great news for people reading a site like Hacker News - I don't think it would be out of line to suggest most new technology is marketed towards those with the disposable income to purchase it.

There is no need to make this into a "stupid liberals just trying to score points" issue.

> What does political affiliation have to do with this?

Well liberals love to pretend they are environmentally "conscious" while conservatives are "drill baby drill"? Right? Maybe I should have written fake california liberals.

> People being excited about new and innovative technologies like electric cars, space travel, and solar roofs is great news for people reading a site like Hacker News

I love innovative stuff. Solar roof isn't innovative.

> There is no need to make this into a "stupid liberals just trying to score points" issue.

I wasn't trying to score points. I was just being honest and offering my opinion. I'm fairly liberal myself...

Huh, I don't know much about roof costs, but which bar was incorrect in their price chart for you: the asphalt or the solar tiles?

From their chart, the solar tiles (installed) should only be about twice as much as asphalt.

That's a very misleading chart.

(1) The solar tiles aren't actually on the chart. If they were, they'd have to extend the scale more than twice as wide as what's shown, out to past $40 per square foot based on their calculator.

(2) The bar that is on the chart is for their "non-solar" tiles, plain glass squares. That's the one that's twice as long as the bar for asphalt tiles.

The solar glass tiles are actually more like 10x the cost of asphalt shingles, including installation.

While doing the calculations I read "Cost of Powerball ticket" instead of "Cost of Powerwall battery"... laughed loud as it would be useful to help pay it off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com