Tesla hikes solar roof price on contracts signed over a year ago
electrek.co
electrek.co
okay, let me get this straight. They're increasing the cost of a contract you'd already signed and then they're passive aggressively threatening customers to push them to the back of the queue if they don't agree?
Excuse the profanity but holy shit, that is the most brazen thing I've read in a long time. How can that be legal
People aren't free not to do business with people they have contracts with. That's one of the major reasons to sign a contract.
> You will receive an email in the next 1-2 days when your new agreement is ready for your review and acceptance before moving forward. If you are no longer interested in moving forward with Solar Roof, you can cancel your order by logging into your Tesla Account and your deposit will automatically be refunded.
Afaik you have to have proof of damages, and I know in Canada at least you basically get nothing for emotional distress that may be caused - and in the US from what I know, mental pain and suffering can be a significant part of a settlement or ruling.
You relied on the representation of the other party that they agreed to X(written contract or not, written is easier to rove, but not essential), and then took actions based on the expectation of X.
Costs might include hard materials & labor costs for preparing the site, your labor in preparing the site, lost income for time you spent, opportunity costs of not taking advantage of other opportunities (e.g., how much electricity costs you incurred by not putting in other panels instead of their contract), and emotional distress.
The problem is going to be proving each and every one of those charges in court, in the face of both legitimate and bullsh*t arguments by Tesla's lawyers - and they will bring both types of arguments by the truckload.
What Tesla is counting on is that it will almost always cost more to pursue the lawsuit than you will recover, so no one will step up and sue. They have scale, you don't.
This is why class action lawsuits exist - so that all similarly situated plaintiffs can combine their actions into one, and pursue it with one firm. It would not surprise me that someone at a class-action firm is already examining these reports, taking notes, and making calls. Similarly, anyone with this problem should be contacting class action firms this morning.
As mentioned in the article, at least one individual spent thousands in preparation for his roof.
The time and effort of getting the initial work done and now the revelation of a double digit percent price increase, and a low key threat of further delays unless you sign right now?
Sounds quite distressful.
In fact, it is by design stressful, so as to pressure the consumer to accept the new contract.
I.e., a lawsuit is not scaleable as an individual.
Tesla are taking advantage of that advantage of that asymmetry in scale, and basically saying "this is wrong, so sue us", knowing that few or zero will, and most will just eat that dung sandwich.
I'm still struggling with the fact that google wants to move my contract out of germany since I haven't been back since covid started. It refers to a section in the user agreement to object to it that I have not found.
They should really legislate against the validity of these term change at whim.
A contract cannot compel any action - it is an agreement on what is expected and the cost of non-compliance.
Every part of this sentence before and after “it is an agreement on what is expected” is incorrect. A contract may lay out consequences of noncompliance, but it is contract law, not the terms of the contract that will set the actual consequences; those set in the contract are valid in only limited circumstances, and only then if their amount is appropriate under the law. And the manner of enforcement may be too compel performance of the obligations in the contract, see the remedy called “specific performance”.
There is a little-used 'specific performance' case but that's for objects of art or whatnot, especially when no monetary value can be assigned. And in the overwhelming number of situations, should not be relied upon for remedy.
Its cash (almost) all the way.
I mean, the wording is shady, but exiting contracts isn't some end of the universe event, you pay whatever penalty are present for the contract termination and that's it.
People are also free to sue for monetary damages incurred from having to pay upfront whatever work they had to do to prepare their roof, and again, doesn't make exiting a contract illegal.
Parent is right in not jumping the shark and branding things names they aren't.
heck, it's not even clear if it's actually a breach of contract since they were willing to return deposits etc.
What rules do you think courts use to make judgements?
so by contrast you think the ever given being late against their delivery contract is illegal?
Of course what they are actually doing is they are proposing new terms, which customers are free to refuse. The existing contracts stand and Tesla would need to follow whatever is permitted in the contract or contract law to cancel it or be liable for compensation.
I would also think that there ought to be an expectation of a reasonable deadline to execute the contract or customers can ask for a refund (at a minimum) and walk away, but IANA.
Most contract law has things in place to prevent bait and switch tactics like this, especially when pressure tactics are used like threatening longer wait times.
(under the terms of the existing agreement)
If they do have the unilateral right to cancel the existing contract before starting work, offering new terms first probably won't be treated as coercive.
If they need a new roof they can go to a regular roofer instead at a fraction of the cost.
If I was affected by this I would probably not think of this as a complication but rather something that would make me look at different options. So either:
1.) There are competitors that can offer a deal considered subjectively better overall, for example a faster delivery and lower price for some other compromise (like panels instead of a nice looking roof).
2.) Or, there are no competitors that you can or want to consider, in which case you either pay up, wait for the market to mature or cancel the plans completely.
Mandatory binding arbitration bans courts of law from making any decision. They are only allowed to enforce the decision of the arbiter, who does not have to follow any laws except the American Arbitration Act.
This really has been a cancer on our nation, I remember the day after citizens united even xbox live had binding arbitration in a mandatory update the very next day.
Reason 749274937295 I am done with this country.
If you go to arbitration and you feel the result was unfair, you can always appeal to the courts. There, the judge can either affirm the decision or throw it out entirely.
And the arbiter only gets to keep making money by hearing "cases" as long as they don't rule against the company.
The problem is the court system has chosen to liberally interpret the arbitration act against the citizenry.
Now show me all these agreements being "thrown out". What's instead happening is state laws attempting to protect the citizenry being thrown out instead.
Some folks might have promissory estoppel damages as was mentioned elsewhere, but that's entirely different than "you signed this contract so you must follow through on it."
The only law that matters here is the American Arbitration Act. All other laws do not apply.
As long as the AAA applies, the contract is "legal".
The arbiter's whims will decide the result, not "the law". The AAA overrides all other laws, state and federal, with respect to the contract.
Here's a copy of one of the agreements: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/CI-Energy-Products...
I don't know what it is about this continually unlearned lesson of "Maybe just chat with someone who does the thing you're trying to replace for 5 minutes". Absolutely same thing with the boring company- 5 minutes with an expert would have saved them years of learning the lessons everyone already knew.
I mean, there would've been plenty of knowledgeable people in the relevant industries telling Musk why landing rockets and reusing them is not going to work, and why battery powered mass market electric vehicles is a pipe dream.
The way this should work is: Sometimes it works and a company is successful, and sometimes it doesn't and the company isn't successful.
Musk's apparent mode of operation is: if it works, my company is successful, and if it doesn't work, a lot of customers (or even would-be-customers) will take part of the hit and the company won't be that unsuccessful.
That's not how it should work.
As for electric cars, I believe the limiting factor was battery technology, which has improved in leaps and bounds in the past decade. Tesla wasn't the only company developing electric cars - Renault-Nissan Alliance achieved the sales milestone of 350,000 all-electric vehicles delivered globally in August 2016, ranking second was Tesla Motors with over 139,000 electric cars sold between 2008 and June 2016. It's also not clear that Musk founded Tesla, but I'm not clear on the history there.
Tesla do have the strongest branding in electric cars though, and I would attribute that to Musk's ability as a showman.
And the Shuttle itself was reusable, but that's sort of besides the point, as that's a space-plane, not a rocket used to bring things into orbit. Whether capsules or space-planes is a better concept for the spacecraft itself is a different discussion altogether.
The per kg cost to orbit of Falcon 9 launches is an order of magnitude less than it was for Space Shuttle, so credit should be given where credit is due.
To be fair, the Falcon 9 similarly discards its entire second stage.
I really wish they'd have boosted the Shuttle tank to stable orbit and used it for space stations.
One would make a pretty serviceable space station.
100+ would make one hell of a space station if you designed them to be strung together.
Some early NASA concepts: http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html
If you're wondering about practicality, Skylab was a Saturn V tank. Unlike the external tank suggestions, Skylab was built on the ground and never had fuel in it. But it was basically the same structure as the Saturn's third stage. Like ISS, Skylab had some micrometeorite shielding outside of the main tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab
More recently, Nanoracks has looked at refurbishing ULA's Centaur upper stage into a habitat. Like the Shuttle, Centaur runs on a H2 + O2 cycle. Their plan is to lift an equipment kit onboard the Centaur. They'd cut a hole after the end of the mission and use on-orbit welding (not mature yet) to install all the floors/decks/airlocks.
- technically feasible
- economically not feasible due to limited number of launches
And weather or not i is econommically feasible for SpaceX is impossible to tell without their financials. It does seem so, that Starlink is increasing SpaceX launches.
There is truths to Tesla, but to be honest, Tesla was considerably close to running out of money some while ago. The art of Musk is to have Tesla seen as a tech company, and not as a car maker.
Frankly Delta Clipper was even more impressive given that it came from MDC who were by far the most conservative defense contractor. That sort of thing would have been more typical of Northrop.
(BTW, kids, if you ever want to see what a successful act of espionage looks like, look at this: it would look like Boeing shooting off its own foot and then the Pentagon shooting off its own foot in response, both in ways that "accidentally" benefit Russia and make us dependent on them for space access.)
I don't know what this says regarding the possibility of further success for SpaceX; they've moved to a less dense fuel in hopes that it'll allow them to have self pressurizing tankage. While SpaceX has had increadible success I find myself wishing there was a way of wedding Elon's money and drive with the people who built DC-X in hopes that they could maybe, MAYBE, get more than one or two flights out of each test vehicle.
IF you could get cheap RL-10's for the price that the DC-X project was buying them for in the 90's, I'd suggest using them, suitably modified to burn methane, _just_ as a braking/landing engine. [2]
(But that was way back in the 90's, when the MIC was still sometimes running assembly lines instead of building each single engine by hand).
(Oh, and I found a slightly better ref. on RL-10's: [3])
[1] https://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/hydrogen_deltav.html
[2] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11020.0
It's unusual an dated in the US but unexceptional in the UK.
"The UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for setting the "official spelling" of words."
DKVF = don't know very far?
Source: Someone from an established boring company they tried to buy their first boring machine from, until they decided on a cheaper much more outdated model, with which they encountered basically all the problems they were warned about.
I'm not sure it's fair to make this statement without acknowledging the times he's been successful doing precisely what that five minute conversation would have had him avoid.
For example: Tesla itself, SpaceX, and PayPal.
Bad example: Tesla almost went down the drain during the Model 3 ramp-up because they thought they knew better how to do large-scale car manufacturing than all the other large-scale car manufacturers. Turned out, they didn't, had to rethink and redesign many processes, and had to shift part of the production to hastily erected tents.
The point was not that the company would never have benefited from other lessons from the industry at any other point.
Before SpaceX, there was little to no competition in reusable, cost-efficient rockets. Before Tesla, there was little to no competition in attractive, high-end EVs. That's why they're successful. There was, however, a lot of competition in car mass manufacturing. It was arrogant and misguided of Tesla and Musk to ignore industry knowledge in highly competitive areas.
The lack of competition was itself a reflection of conventional wisdom in those industries, though, which is my point.
Tesla's competitive advantage was a willingness to cut corners. Other companies have been testing, developing production processes, building supply chains. You can bet there won't be a Bloomberg model 3 weekly production tracker for their cars since they'll make what they plan, which will actually happen when they say.
If you measure performance in 0-60 only, and pricing/efficiency in self reported/marketed EPA range (not actual real world range) then Tesla is definitely ahead.
What I meant is that they are selling a car at $38k that outperforms the competition on range, efficiency, safety, space, performance, tech, driving assists; it includes features like the panoramic roof that cost an arm and a leg as optionals on every other car. So clearly they are doing something different in their manufacturing.
_he_? Elon Musk didn't start the company.
And neither does anyone else, really, which is why the detail is mostly ignored in common discussion.
I’m really confused how anyone at Tesla allows their solar division to run like this. For all the cost cutting Elon likes to push, this seems like a huge area of waste.
I’m just finding it really hard to recommend Tesla solar to anyone. Trying to talk to anyone there is a massive pain point and in my case they clearly don’t want the money. (Just to be clear I’ve reached out a bunch and signed updated paperwork but they’ve still yet to submit).
If you want to run your dryer when the solar panels are at their best, starting it on a simple timer will get you most of the benefit without any of that insecure IoT nonsense.
There may be a reason why SolarCity was going bankrupt, and why Elon Musk used his position in Tesla to bail out its primary shareholders (Himself).
It could be that the SolarCity business is just not ran well, and after Tesla bailed it out, it... Continues to not be ran well.
Big players in the car industry will slowly push Tesla out of the market in the next 10 years, as Tesla cannot compete with the logistics, expertise and reach of Toyota, Volkswagen or Fiat-Chrysler to name a few.
Volkswagen is churning out very decent full class EV cars across all sectors at a much faster rate than Tesla, thanks to the MEB [1]. Do they still lack range compared to a Model whatever? Yes. Has Tesla built amazing cars for starting off from almost scratch? Yes.
But an Audi e-Tron SUV feels 10x as awesome as a Model X, sorry. Hype or not it's not even close. I wouldn't even hesitate between a Model S and a Porsche Taycan either, even if things like charging infrastructure and range are considered.
Going from 0 to 60 in 2.7s is what Tesla claims on the Model S P1000D. You can do that maybe one time and then the time starts stretching. The Porsche Taycan Turbo S consistently delivers this performance 10x in a row without going weak. [2, German]
Right now Teslas have some edge here, others some edge there but Tesla won't survive the next 5 years of EV evolution with respect to the car industry heavy weights.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_MEB_platform
[2] https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/test/porsche-taycan-turb...
Seems to me that quality control has stayed pretty much the same (or, if anything, has gotten better), but you're seeing more of it since they're making way way more cars.
People always think their cars will ‘keep getting better over time’ due to the software updates, but ask any MCU1 owner how well that’s going. Basically: once your hardware is no longer the latest generation they put in new cars, you quickly start missing out on new features. And that’s after the software has slowed down over time on your old hardware because they probably only test in the latest cars.
As for the quality control: there were plenty of videos from bumpers falling off of Model 3’s after driving through puddles. Or rain leaking through the windshield of Model Y’s. Even die-hard Tesla youtubers still mention the panel gaps whenever they get a new Tesla. Btw: ever noticed that they rarely keep those Teslas for more than 2 or 3 years?
S and X had a lot of build problems, but the problems you’re seeing on 3’s and Y’s are much more severe IMO. Especially from a company that once claimed they were gonna teach Toyota a thing or two about auto manufacturing.
Won't argue that out-of-warranty work isn't pricey, but is it really any better than other luxury cars? I've had plenty of friends with BMWs or Audis that had huge repair bills on out of warranty stuff. Your example of yellowing screens is a known issue that they're finally admitting to, and rolling out a fix. Your one anecdote here regarding Audi seems contrary to much of general consensus.
>> People always think their cars will ‘keep getting better over time’ due to the software updates, but ask any MCU1 owner how well that’s going. Basically: once your hardware is no longer the latest generation they put in new cars, you quickly start missing out on new features. And that’s after the software has slowed down over time on your old hardware because they probably only test in the latest cars.
How is MCU1 owners not getting the latest features different from literally any other car? Every other car gets no additional features the moment you drive it off the lot. Even getting map updates is something that is iffy and costs money.
>> As for the quality control: there were plenty of videos from bumpers falling off of Model 3’s after driving through puddles. Or rain leaking through the windshield of Model Y’s. Even die-hard Tesla youtubers still mention the panel gaps whenever they get a new Tesla. Btw: ever noticed that they rarely keep those Teslas for more than 2 or 3 years?
Again, how much of that is quality actually getting worse, or just the fact they're making WAY more cars, so the quality % is same/better but incident amount is up due to scale?
>> S and X had a lot of build problems, but the problems you’re seeing on 3’s and Y’s are much more severe IMO. Especially from a company that once claimed they were gonna teach Toyota a thing or two about auto manufacturing.
I don't think anyone truly thinks Tesla is going to have better build quality than Toyota. That said, there's plenty of reports of other manufacturers with lemons. Again, the question is quantity. Tesla's failures get press.
I live in Australia, and last year I had 13kw worth of solar panels, with a 10kw inverter installed on my roof for $10k AUD (about $8k USD).
Our federal government does some subisidies, so I believe the raw cost was closer to $15k. But either way, that is substantially lower than what is quoted here?
Why would anyone pay $70k USD for solar?
I would think that a Tesla roof is roof+solar in one. Or am I missing something?
Tesla's fancy solar roofs take this away and are very likely more expensive over the long term due to higher AC costs.
Nudging a customer to accept new terms by putting them to the front of the queue seems morally wrong, and as others have pointed out possibly illegal.
Even the same jeans and motorcycle boots are 50% more expensive than the list price 3 years ago, the bicycle parts ordered from Germany are 50% more expensive than 4-5 years ago, so it is not just computer parts. Not sure if this is all from the vast quantity of money printed in the past year or there is some other cause I cannot identify.
Was speaking with a contractor who told me quotes they put out a year ago they’re having to revise about 40% (depending on project) for clients that are requesting work start now.
Labor costs haven’t quite risen in that field yet but with insatiable demand right now I’d expect it to. A carpenter I know has been working 6 days a week for months now.
Money is cheap and people had a great year of saving due to not taking vacations, etc last year. Combine that with supply lines being disrupted and it’s a bidding war for materials.
Go to Home Depot and be shocked at the price of a 2x4.
But Musk has siphoned so much wealth out of Tesla because of his extraordinary compensation package that it makes you wonder if they will survive over the long term.
I don't disagree with you, but this in itself is hardly an uncommon thing in any consumer market. What makes it really weird though is how it messes with the economy of getting something out of your investment.
Bolting the framework and panels onto a existing roof cannot be that hard.
The electrics are the same, surly?
But I have not priced it. Have you?
Or is the intended target market just very old houses that are being fully renovated?
> If Tesla can’t honor the old price, they’ll need to put on a regular roof and solar panels (which they estimate will cost significantly less than Tesla’s updated Solar Roof pricing).
Perfectly fine for flexing over when their wife brings it up every goddamn millisecond.
We have a rather flat roof, so no tiles, and the bitumen cover has to covered with a new layer every 10 years or so. This is also considerably cheaper than tiles.
I've only ever had asphalt shingle roofs, which require basically no maintenance (unless hail or a tree branch or something damages it).
I think as long as you don't let multiple slates come off in the same area (and therefore run the risk of water getting in) slate roofs pretty much last forever - they are stone after all!
Basically, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_shingle
How can a solid slate roof need replacement after only few decades?
Putting in a new solid slate roof today is stupidly expensive, and basically nobody does that outside of the very top end. You can probably change your asphalt shingle roof 4 times for the price of putting up a slate roof.
Essentially it's a question of priority. Most people probably don't plan to live more than 20-25 years in their current house, so why not go for the cheapest option that gets the job done and let the next owner worry about fixing the roof.
but wouldn't make something like tesla's solar roof make more sense for houses like that, those that already use solid shingles? If I don't care about my house for more than 25 years anyway, I think I'm not the ideal solar roof customer anyway.
I'm assuming you're talking about US? In UK all new houses still have solid slate roofs. Even the cheapest new houses(around £100k where I live) have a solid slate roof that is expected to last 50-100 years.
You will find when you Google "American roofs" that one of the top "People also ask" is "What are American roofs made of?", which goes on to say to your horror:
An asphalt shingle is a type of wall or roof shingle that uses asphalt for waterproofing. It is one of the most widely used roofing covers in North America because it has a relatively inexpensive up-front cost and is fairly simple to install.
The dominant American roof uses inferior technology because it inexpensively lasts on average about four mortgage holders (average US mortgage holding period is seven years), by which time IBGYBG. And to think many believe China has cornered the market on the "cha bu duo" mindset. To be fair, unless you are paying well over average rates, I've yet to see a country where the average residential construction shows a lot of attention to detail, just like in many other industries.
Interesting contrast with the UK where a typical mortgage duration is 25 years (and the roofing material is designed to last at least 4x that, and with appropriate repairs several hundred). But I think the UK roofing approach is more driven by regulations (and the typically higher housing cost relative to incomes much more by by land shortage)
That being said - Texas has more extreme conditions for roofs which may explain the perception. Sustained winds of 70mph+ can and do happen on a yearly basis - also baseball sized hail and thunderstorms. It's pretty common to see a mild storm in the UK blow off some of the older roofs that probably should have been replaced a few decades earlier.
Sure, if your homeowner's insurance is paying to fix it and you never actually see the bill, it sounds like a more expensive roof still makes sense. But putting up the upfront expense of a tile roof when you know it's just going to break the next time there's a big storm is pretty unappetizing.
25yr an unacceptably short lifetime for any professionally installed roof. That's like what you get when you install liquidated shingles that were sitting outside on a pallet for 15yr on a garden shed that has small tree bits falling on it and moss growing on it.
Apparently in US people tend to use asphalt shingles which indeed last 20-25 years[0]
Their whole line of cars highlights power, performance, luxury, and the cool factor. They've almost single-handedly destroyed the conception that EVs are sad little suped up golf carts for tree hugging dweebs. You're almost a loser if you don't have a Tesla now. The cybertruck is another big play on this trend.
The solar roof is another take on this. Make solar look like regular shingles and along with the amortized cost savings, people resistant to change really don't have a good argument against it, whereas they might for an installment of obvious panels.
(Also some of the light that would heat it is turning into electricity, so maybe there is a small temperature difference there)
To your supposition about the construction and shading, the solar roof tiles are tempered glass plates with clips that mate with plastic standoff roof mounts, so there is a ~35mm air gap beneath the tiles and the roof membrane.
This is the pathway that the electrical cables route to interconnect the tiles and other needed electrical appurtenances like electric feed-throughs, mppt devices and inline disconnects to satisfy newer NEC rules about the maximum string voltage in a system shutdown.
The clip in design also allows for individual tiles to be removed and replaced without disturbing those around them, although scaling a glass roof sounds harrowing.
I will say that the roof quality needed to execute the solar roofing system was intense. There was very little affordance for shimming the tiles into the plane, which seemed a oversight in design. The whole roof deck needed to be coplanar to (going from memory) ~1". In our area this would be rare to find houses with this quality of roof deck, requiring significant reworking to rip the decking and shim the supporting structure from below. Our housing stock is old.
The estimated installation time was on the order of 10X of a traditional above-the-roof solar system at weeks vs ~2 days. The install really needed people with the skills of a roofer, which wasn't a significant overlap with the skills of a normal roof working solar installer.
Leaving too much gap will get stuff underneath the tiles and also make them more susceptible to being removed by wind or exposure of the membrane to UV and other things it's not tolerant of.
The real waterproofing layer is the membrane that's put down first.
There are higher numbers of clips on the panels/tiles for high wind areas.
If I was baller enough to afford this I would definitely invest in a continuous insulation roofing system to go on first.
I installed 2kW of panels on my roof myself, and inverter, and batteries, for a total of about $2700.
The price of US solar installations seems incredibly high.
Also, with a 2 storey house, it's hard to see the panels even if you try.
The price of US installation includes very well paid, and very well fed $200k a year electricians scaling your roof.
This is the real story here, and it seems like people are blind to it. Compared to everywhere else in the world, solar prices in the US are ridiculously expensive.
I'm based in Europe, and in January obtained quotes for a 10kW roof mount system to be installed. The most expensive quote I received was for €9,500. That's for all equipment, installation, taxes, and guarantee - and before government incentives (30%). The actual equipment would be less than €5,000 if you were to DIY the install, so even with that the installer is making a healthy profit.
I frequent /r/solar, and the prices I see people say they are quoted are mind bogling. For the same thing they are receiving quotes of $50k or more. Now admittedly I live in a lower cost of living European country, but I've read prices in Germany are very similar - and that is where all the equipment installers here use comes from anyway.
Some of the reasons people give are because electrical equipment needs to be upgraded. Ok, that might cost a little more, but not $40,000. The quote I received was for a new build. It cost us under €1,000 to have the electricity company bring in the supply and install a cabinet and meter on our plot (it was empty before). That included digging up the road, and connecting to overhead wires nearby.
I need to replace my roof. I'm a contractor so I know how to do it. I'm getting older though, and procrastinating. My fear is the physical work, but that's another story.
I've looked into asphalt, and shingle. I'll most likely go with asphalt shingles because of the cost.
I figure if I procrastonate another few years, I might be able to put solar shingles up?
I'm glad Musk got the solar shingles rolling. I'm suprised other companies haven't ventured into solar shingles. And honestly, the electricty/green aspect is not my concern. I can't really afford to be green, but if I could put up a water tight reasonably priced roof--I'd go with paying a bit more than shingles that produce free electricity. (If anyone at a Musk industries reads this; there are many DIY guys out there. Put up some good installation videos of roofing, and of course, your product. Make them so detailed, the average DIY'er might attempt the job? Take into account many people might used the solar shingles, but not have the battery, and controls. I might put up the shingles, and wait for the battery costs to come down.
At some point, every building will need roof. It's a huge market.
This pretty much. Are other American roofing companies plain fucking stupid? For all the competition spiel in America, there really isn't much to show for it.
Source: norm on this old house
Solar roadways have the problem of: you need to -ing drive on them. So you need to build them strong enough to support the weight of a tractor trailers, while also making sure it has traction. Which goes against the ability of the solar panels to actually see the sun well.
Lots of complexity and money for quite sub-optimal solar generation. Also despite everyone saying they look "beautiful" I think they are too busy because of how reflective they are and take away from the architectural beauty. If solar shingles end up being a failure, people will be able to recognize your roof, and now your house is now an eyesore with crapware on top of it that needs to be replaced.
source: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/02/10/whats-the-efficiency-...
FWIW, I own and have owned several Tesla vehicles and even though the economics of the Tesla solar roof + Powerwall didn't quite work out, I was willing to overpay a bit for the supposed ease of integration into the Tesla ecosystem. It was also a hedge against rolling power outages that California's been struggling with in the past few years.
I also have experience that Tesla customer service + sales support is pretty atrocious, but again, they were first movers and their product is legitimately pretty decent, so I was willing to take the hit. I was prepared for bad service, but what I got was legitimately awful.
I initially put a deposit down for a few Powerwalls (to be used to arbitrage power rates in CA and as a hedge against rolling blackouts). Over the next 3 months, I spoke with and was called by 6 different sales reps who told me that:
-- I could install the Powerwalls standalone and integrate it into my house
-- I needed to buy a Solar Roof otherwise the Powerwalls wouldn't work
-- I needed to buy a Solar Roof otherwise the wait time for a Powerwall was greater than two years
-- Even if I bought a Solar Roof, I could only buy one Powerwall
-- I could only buy one Powerwall. If I wanted to buy more than one, I would need to buy a Solar Roof as well.
-- They were not selling Powerwalls and the only way I could get a Powerwall was to buy a Solar Roof.
Obviously, they wanted to sell Solar Roofs. Fine. My house could probably use a new roof anyways, and the economics weren't that awful.
So I asked them what the next step was if I wanted to buy a Solar Roof (and some Powerwalls) and they said that they'd estimate my roof area from some satellite shots. They said that it'd probably take a few days.
About two months later, I get an email from Tesla letting me know that they had done their math and my quote was ready. The final price for just a Solar Roof (one Powerwall) system that output just 9.5kW? $60,000. Adding another Powerwall bumped it by $8,000. For what it's worth, I got several other quotes for a comparable roof replacement + solar panels and average pricing was around $40,000.
Tesla's proposal didn't discuss timing, didn't break down the cost of parts vs labor, and basically asked me to pay up and let them putz around till they decided to get to me. I asked for more information, got a call back about a month later. After our conversation, got an email with the breakdown of literally "roof = $xxx.xx" and "labor = $xxx.xx". Timing was cited to be between 3 - 9 months depending on supply.
Every single person I spoke with was different every time. There was some continuity on the email side, but honestly, it seems like Tesla couldn't be arsed to actually build or sell this product in a competent manner. I just wanted to put a few overpriced batteries in my house to keep the fridge running but Tesla turned this into a year-long debacle. Even after I canceled my order with Tesla, I still occasionally receive phone calls and emails from them asking to schedule my install date.
I believe Elon said the biggest issue for the whole ecosystem is battery supply, Powerwalls competing with availability for their EVs etc. Compound this with they're putting out and trying to scale new battery tech, this does feel like it could lead to this mess.
Certainly they'd want to capture orders ahead of the curve enough but problematic when the product is still evolving and costs and timeline aren't known yet.
Given that Tesla hasn’t been around for very long, how long do/did your cars last, and why? Just interested, as the average (non-electrical) cars in my family last around 20 years.
I usually keep my cars for 8-10 years. How many miles are you putting on in 20 years? I put almost 200,000 miles in about 10 years on my 4Runner until the transmission started some crazy knocking sound at 230k.
Actually went back to my 2009 diesel car when the lease expired because:
-- I'm tall and the Model S cars don't have much headroom. I've driven a few of the newer models (as courtesy cars) and for some reason, they feel much better in terms of headroom compared with the early models. I don't think they're listed as having more headroom though so this is a bit of a head scratcher for me. I don't think my car had a pano roof so that might have been the difference.
-- The QC and interior really is below standard for the price point of the car. A lot of plastic trim, squeaky bits, and laggy UI (for the main display -- driving was fine).
About a year later, I went back and leased a Model X for another 4 years. Headroom problem solved, QC still bad but the new processing unit made for a much smoother experience. Picked up a Model 3 as well and that car is far and away the best value proposition from Tesla. QC better on the 3, comfort improved (I actually prefer cloth seats to leather), and headroom is decent. Still leasing for reasons above.
I believe that EVs and autonomy are the future of passenger vehicles and Tesla makes decent EVs with decent autonomy. For my money, there are better EVs out there at most price points, but no one else has the Supercharger network and reasonably autonomous driving (on highways). I drive quite a bit and in heavy traffic (like 75% of my life) and over long distances (up and down California), Autopilot significantly reduces mental load and physical strain.
For what it's worth I still keep my old diesel around though it's requiring more and more maintenance even as its been driven less and less.
I'm shocked that people are shocked about this. The cult of Elon is strong.
According to their Q4/2020 report [1], they deployed 200MW of solar in 2020, which doesn't sound that spectacular for a solar company (globally, new installations in 2020 were > 100GW). Admittedly, I don't know a thing about solar, though.
[1] https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/1LRLZK_2020_Q4_Quarterly_...
These kind of moves seem to underscore that; they don’t seem to care about the actual business, which would require creating a lot of trust over a long period of time. This isn’t like buying a new laptop, or even a new car: you’re talking about trusting someone’s word with the roof to your home and its primary power source for the next 20-30 years.
my daily production is around 25 KWh on a really sunny day.
The lethargic govt "grant" took right around a month of my submitting a bank draft and the installation. then another month later the final installation of lightening arresters and such.
The way it is set up, you pay your deposit amount (around 30% of the project cost) via bank draft to the govt and they assign a local retailer/installer to install the whole setup, panels and reverse meter and inverter and once the govt gives them a green signal, their money is released.
We are pretty far from that point, and at the moment, visible solar panels add value.
For the moment, the minority of people for whom non-visible solar PV on a premium slate type roof is a priority are largely people who are wealthy enough to be insensitive to this price change, so it sort of makes sense to charge more.
Like, if you're buying a house, even if the solar panels are perfectly hidden, they'll still be prominently mentioned on the listing and by the agent. I'd imagine they'd even be more valuable than bulky and obvious panels, since those tend to look kinda ugly, especially on some more vintage house designs.
I.e. The social cachet from the older style panels being super visible outweighs the reduced asthetic, therefore people will not pay extra for nicer looking solar.
The point isn't bragging rights. It's that most people today don't consider solar panels to be an eyesore, and some people actually like the look.
It's just like how the existence of luxury cars doesn't make most people think a Toyota Camry is an eyesore.
Not exactly. I meant that most people don't think standard PV panels are so unsightly that they would pay a huge premium for solar roof tiles, and many actually like how standard PV panels look.
What looks ugly to some is being visibly green to others.
They don't. They probably raise it more in fact. But given that both raise the resale value, but the solar roof is phenomenally more expensive, most opt for standard PV, and think it looks plenty fine.
IIRC, several years ago purchase overtook leasing for new residential solar installations. It’s definitely not the case thst no one is getting owned instead of leased solar.
Link?
The more I learn about how his employees are treated the more I wonder if these companies would be sustainable over the years.