SolarCity Plans To Release New 'Solar Roof' Product Next Year (computerworld.com)

An anonymous reader writes: SolarCity, the American provider of energy services recently purchased by Tesla Motors for $2.6 billion, is planning to produce a new "solar roof" product next year. Computerworld reports: "Five million roofs are replaced each year in the U.S., so instead of simply swapping out old shingles with new ones, why not turn the whole roof into a solar power generator that's integrated with your home's electrical utility? That is SolarCity's plan for a new product it expects to begin producing next year, according to statements made during the company's second-quarter earnings call last week. During the call, SolarCity Chief Technology Officer Peter Rive alluded to a new product that would be produced at the soon to open Buffalo, N.Y., solar panel manufacturing facility. Then SolarCity co-founder and Chairman Elon Musk interjected and said the product would be a solar roof, 'as opposed to a [solar] module on a roof.' The solar roof also has the advantage that it doesn't 'cannibalize' any existing SolarCity product, such as solar panels installed atop roofs, Musk said." "If your roof is nearing end of life, you definitely don't want to put solar panels on it because you're going to have to replace the roof," Musk said. "So there's a huge market segment that's kind of inaccessible to SolarCity. So, why not have a solar roof that's better in many other ways as well," he continued. "We don't want to turn over all our cards right now, but I think people are going to be really excited about what they'll see."

Comments

Ease of assembly

[flyingfsck]

It would be all about ease of assembly.

Re:Ease of assembly

[Penguinisto]

Well, there are other factors to take into account...

* zoning laws
* HOA covenants/rules (if they exist for the given house)
* local infrastructure capacity (in the case of rural coops or PUDs, shingling every roof in the county with panels may well overload the local grid)
* engineering of the roofing itself (can it withstand annual/frequent hailstorms, etc?)
* to some extent any laws governing homes on runway approaches (if the roof produces glare that bugs pilots, etc)

I'm sure there's a lot more to take into account as well...

Re:Ease of assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

These

  * zoning laws
  * HOA covenants/rules (if they exist for the given house)

  and potential legislation restricting domestic solar generation and back supplying the grid.

  Are going to stifle this technology.

 

Re:Ease of assembly

[netsavior]

I live in Texas, and it is kind of shocking that here, of all places they passed a law preventing municipalities and HOAs from making laws or rules against installing rooftop solar. So basically that takes care of 10% of the landmass of the lower 48 states as far as your first 2 concerns.

How durable?

[Jason Levine]

Here in upstate NY, winters often mean that I need to get out our roof rake to pull snow off our roof. If I don't, ice dams form and then runoff from melting snow gets under our roof shingles and can get into our house. My questions for SolarCity would be: Would these solar shingles hold up to having a roof rake scraped across them? (It would be useless if I had to replace shingles every year due to roof raking damage.) Also, how would they handle snow melt getting under the shingles? Presumably, there will be wiring there. Would moisture under the shingles cause issues?

Re:How durable?

[Ogive17]

I think the intention is the replace the shingles and have your roof made out of solar panels.

I've had this same idea for a long time. There's no benefit of asphalt shingles other than the relatively low cost. If you could replace your roof with a solar panel system that #1 protected your home and #2 provided a significant amount of power generation I wonder what the total cost of ownership would be. At current electricity rates, I'll pay about $20,000 over the next 20 years to the electric company. I would also pay $15,000-$20,000 every 20-30 years to get new shingles.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have an inversion mode where rather than generate electricity from sunlight, the voltage is reversed and they consume electricity and produce heat. This melts any snow and ice present. Right now this is a manual switchover by the homeowner, but I would expect an optical sensor in the future that detects when the light is being obscured by snow and acts accordingly.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no shingles. The panels are the "shingles."

Ice dams are usually the result of an insufficiently insulated roof or attic. An installation of a solar roof should include proper insulation and venting. Since solar city's business model is leaseback, which makes them responsible for system maintenace, they would be foolish if they didn't remediate any insulation problems at the time of installation.

Re:How durable?

[Ol Olsoc]

Here in upstate NY, winters often mean that I need to get out our roof rake to pull snow off our roof. If I don't, ice dams form and then runoff from melting snow gets under our roof shingles and can get into our house. My questions for SolarCity would be: Would these solar shingles hold up to having a roof rake scraped across them? (It would be useless if I had to replace shingles every year due to roof raking damage.) Also, how would they handle snow melt getting under the shingles? Presumably, there will be wiring there. Would moisture under the shingles cause issues?

And there you have it. Immediately upon any new like this, some slashdotter comes on and tries to derail the idea with their personal situation.

My guess is that if you have feet of snow on your roof, these are not for you.

Re:How durable?

[rch7]

I doubt rooftop solar make any sense as far North as NY. Other than some subsidy/electric utility rate gaming system.

Re:How durable?

[Nunya666]

Here in upstate NY, winters often mean that I need to get out our roof rake to pull snow off our roof. If I don't, ice dams form and then runoff from melting snow gets under our roof shingles and can get into our house. My questions for SolarCity would be: Would these solar shingles hold up to having a roof rake scraped across them? (It would be useless if I had to replace shingles every year due to roof raking damage.) Also, how would they handle snow melt getting under the shingles? Presumably, there will be wiring there. Would moisture under the shingles cause issues?

Roofs are designed to prevent ice dams. If you are getting them, then your roof (or attic) needs help. Most likely, you don't have enough insulation in your attic. Ice dams happen because the underside of the snow on the roof is warm enough to melt the snow. That warmth comes from the attic. The attic should be cold enough that the roof material stays cold, and the snow on the roof doesn't melt on the underside.

I used to get ice dams on a home in Michigan. It already had insulation between the joists, but that wasn't enough. Adding a second layer of insulation, perpendicular to the joists, resolved the ice dam issue.

Re:How durable?

[morethanapapercert]

Since most photovoltaic cells have a glass or polycarbonate top layer, I would think that you wouldn't have to rake snow any more. Depending on the slope of your roof of course. Like people with metal or slate roofs, especially steep ones, you'd be more worried about installing snow guards to keep the snow up there, and not avalanching on top of people. (I once saw a homeless man get clobbered by a mass of ice and snow that fell off the steep slate roof of the church he was standing beside. The unfortunate gentleman did not survive the experience)

Come to think of it, because of UV considerations, I would assume that any roof top application of photovoltaic panels would use glass instead of some plastic. You have to assume similar life expectancies as with other roofing materials after all (10 yrs min, usually 25 to 50 IIRC) and even UV resistant plastics discolour and even become brittle over those sorts of time frames.

Speaking as a former roofer, my recommendation for most residential applications would be to install this new roofing and place snow guards, artificial dormers or roof crickets over every entrance way. I would go with dormers or crickets over entrances because that would still let the snow shed from the glass surfaces naturally. Thus; you would minimize how often you had to go out and clean the roof. Light dustings or ice could still accumulate, and with that the problem would be cutting down on PV output. My ideal PV roof solution would include embedded wires that heat the surface to just above freezing temps, either automatically, or manually. Anyone who drives in snowy regions knows what a big difference those wires in the back glass of their vehicle make when it comes time to clean the car before heading to work...

Re:How durable?

[MachineShedFred]

Except that SolarCity installs plenty of systems in New York, and is building their manufacturing facility in Buffalo.

Re:How durable?

[Ol Olsoc]

I think the intention is the replace the shingles and have your roof made out of solar panels. I've had this same idea for a long time. There's no benefit of asphalt shingles other than the relatively low cost.

I hate those damn things. We have a low pitched roof and shingles don't last long on them. So it's like every 10 years and new ones. As well, if they aren't laid right, heaven help you. Some asshat replaced them before we bought the place, and had a small place, about an inch square where they didn't cover. Right on a gutter We got a lot of wood rot right there. That was fun to fix.

I wanted to go metal last time we replaced them, but my better half thought metal "looked cheap" However now that we are looking at our third replacement, and she's changed her mind. But these solarpanels? Very interesting indeed.

If you could replace your roof with a solar panel system that #1 protected your home and #2 provided a significant amount of power generation I wonder what the total cost of ownership would be. At current electricity rates, I'll pay about $20,000 over the next 20 years to the electric company. I would also pay $15,000-$20,000 every 20-30 years to get new shingles.

Make certain to do your own calculations, and not rely on people who have a vested interest in you using some other method. I bought a new super high efficiency gas furnace, replacing my oil furnace, 4 years ago - it's already paid for itself. Oil people said it might be 15 years.Same with insulation. I'm spending per year what some friends pay per month in energy.

As well, there are the incalculables. Access to the electricity. We have a lot of power outages in my area. And with the whacked weather, we are sometimes out for a while - one time almost a week. Your own power source can make life a lot nicer. It was nice to have lights and furnace that week. Note I wasn't using solar that week, just another power source.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to be able to handle large hail at terminal velocity.

I think compared to that your raking will be fine.

Re:How durable?

[BradleyUffner]

And there you have it. Immediately upon any new like this, some slashdotter comes on and tries to derail the idea with their personal situation.

Right, how dare people evaluate, and ask questions about a product based on their personal situation.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that if you have feet of snow on your roof, these are not for you.

Several feet of snow happens during storms and can be scraped off. It's actually about 60% brighter during the winter and the panels stay cool so they produce more electricity (the down-side being the need to get the right angle.)

Re:How durable?

[Orgasmatron]

It sounded to me like he was interested, but wasn't sure it would work for him. Since more than half the country deals with snow on our roofs either every year, or at least several times over the expected life of a solar panel, it is something that a lot of us are or should be wondering about.

We won't really know for sure until we see what they are making, and possibly until we gain a few years worth of experience on a few thousand homes in the upper midwest or New England.

Personally, I suspect, but don't know, that they will be better than shingles for two reasons. One, smoother easier sliding surface will allow snow to slide off easier. Two, metal and glass will allow better heat conduction, so any exposed area will cause more even melting in the area.

Also, I should point out that there are foam rubber snow rakes that are considered safe to use on cars without wrecking the paint finish. Those should be safe to use on solar panels as well.

(Note that several times here I make assumptions about what this product will be, which may not turn out to be correct. The linked articles are extremely light on details, so that is the best I can do. Sorry.)

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in winter they consume electricity, whereas in summer they generate electricity. Now you just need good enough storage medium to be self sufficient.

Re:How durable?

[c]

Here in upstate NY, winters often mean that I need to get out our roof rake to pull snow off our roof.

I have a feeling that the solar roof would perform more like a metal panel roof than a shingle roof. Anything else would be stupid, really, since snow accumulation would interfere with power generation.

Generally speaking, accumulation doesn't happen much on a smooth roof. The biggest problem is large quantities of snow sliding off, to the point where metal roofs typically include snow stoppers above areas like doors and decks.

Re:How durable?

[nycsubway]

Maybe you could rake it with a wide broom or plastic snow rake. Our neighbor has solar panels on his roof and most of the time the snow slides off after the first sun starts to hit it. Unless its overcast for a few days after a snow, it always seemed to melt off quickly. He did use a broom a few times with new snow, but the sun and melting seem to go hand in hand anyway. And there's no need to clear the snow if there's no sun for the solar cells to use.

So, maybe in the case of a 2ft snowfall you could clear it, but that glass does a good job clearing itself anyway.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'd be wary of "new" home construction technology too - especially for critical components such as a roof. In my case our new custom home was plumbed using fancy Kitec potable water piping. Guess what, it got recalled because the fittings and pipes tended to burst. Now I'm spending nearly $20k to repipe the entire home. It has to be done otherwise we'll have no buyers when we put the home up for sale. Oh I'll get some of that money back from a class action lawsuit, but probably only pennies on the dollar.

Re:How durable?

[pr0fessor]

My power bill average around $170/month but I've gone electric on my appliances and added a electric heater in the garage but even before that I averaged around $130/month which would make 20,0000 in about 13 years

As for the roof... I live in the mid-west it's cheaper but i think your estimate is still of I'd need to have 6,000- 8,000 sq ft roof to pay that for just a shingle job.

Re:How durable?

[whoever57]

As well, there are the incalculables. Access to the electricity. We have a lot of power outages in my area. And with the whacked weather, we are sometimes out for a while - one time almost a week. Your own power source can make life a lot nicer. It was nice to have lights and furnace that week. Note I wasn't using solar that week, just another power source.

Most, if not all grid-tied solar systems require that the grid is actually working. So if you get a power outage, your solar panels won't help you.

I have wondered if you could get the solar inverter to start producing electricity by disconnecting from the grid and connecting a generator (or even a large UPS) to the house wiring.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be late to tell you, as you may already know- but ice dams can be prevented from forming in the first place. Since the ice dams are forming because house heat is warming the roof, the goal is to keep the roof cold. And that can be done two ways, (depending on whether you've an open attic or are living under the slanted roof directly):
- either lay more insulation in the attic to prevent house heat from rising to the roof. Attic will be cold but this is good!
- or more insulation under the roof, (leave two inches for airflow- never put directly against roof).

Both of these require soffits under your eaves to ensure cold air flows under the roof. This should not get your house cold, only the roof/attic.
I hope this helps!!

Re:How durable?

[FatdogHaiku]

How do you deal with snow on and around your existing solar panels?
Not every climate will be suitable for this type of product, just as some locations are a poor place for an outdoor swimming pool, aluminum awning, etc.. Some products have adaptations, like heaters for TV dishes, but I don't think I'd want to heat my roof...

Re:How durable?

[whoever57]

There is lots of solar being installed in the UK, which is further north.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I wanted to go metal last time

I read that as you wanted to go mental. Probably applicable anyways, if it's the 3rd time you've had the same conversation with her :) I know I do!

Re:How durable?

[MTEK]

The people behind this technology (and autopilot), given where they work, probably can't fathom why anyone would live in your climate. Your snow issues are an edge case. SORRY! ;)

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have wondered if you could get the solar inverter to start producing electricity by disconnecting from the grid and connecting a generator (or even a large UPS) to the house wiring.

See Tesla's powerwall.

Re:How durable?

[thinkwaitfast]

That is how my house is wired, but it's all off grid. You can add a transfer switch if you want to be grid connected, but it's all or nothing. The solar/generator half does not feed back into the grid.

Re:How durable?

[MachineShedFred]

How do you deal with snow on and around your existing solar panels?

Well, there's always a $12 broom...

Re:How durable?

[FatdogHaiku]

Given that he's talking about ice dams forming and currently doing roof damage with a rake, I don't think a broom will cut it in upstate New York. I have used brooms to clear snow from TV satellite dishes, but not in that type of climate. I'm thinking you would need an A-frame type roof for a solid solar roof at that latitude...

Re:How durable?

[Slyfox696]

I wanted to go metal last time we replaced them, but my better half thought metal "looked cheap" However now that we are looking at our third replacement, and she's changed her mind.

Off-topic but my father-in-law is a fireman. He's said many times that the best way to ensure total destruction of your home and property in a fire is to have a metal roof.

I'm not an expert, but basically the metal traps all the heat and forces it downward and most firefighters (at least in my area) won't go into a building with a metal roof on it except only to save human life. And, even then, the chances of saving someone are lower.

Just something to think about.

Re:How durable?

[whoever57]

You can add a transfer switch if you want to be grid connected, but it's all or nothing.

I think that if you connect your solar system to the grid, you need permits. These permits require that your system will not operate without grid power. I expect the inverter settings control whether grid power is required or not.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

HOW DARE people correctly point out that anecdotal concerns of a single individual do not equate to the the rest of us having those same issues?

HOW DARE people understand that partial solutions are still SOLUTIONS for some people.

HOW DARE they understand that by solving SOME PEOPLE's problems, the overall size of the remaining problem set is smaller.

HOW DARE we attempt to eat the elephant one bite at a time.

Re:How durable?

[edtice1559]

If you had a solar roof, electricity would be essentially free and you could simply have an elecrtric heater within the panels that would melt off all of the ice at no cost!

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need better attic ventilation and possibly more insulation. Snow is blocking trapping the vents, which traps warm air which does a partial melt - that rolls down the roof past to the overhang and re-freezes.

Re:How durable?

[angel'o'sphere]

What kind of Shingles do you use in the US that you have to replace them so often?

Replacing roofs in Germany is a rather rare activity. I doubt it happens more often than every 50 years.

Re:How durable?

[Jason Levine]

Our roof runs for about half a foot past the house. So the roof above the house is warm and melts the snow (see my explanation in the next paragraph) and the edge of the roof is cold and freezes it back to ice.

We have an upstairs room that was converted (from a previous owner) from attic space. We think that they insulated the former attic area poorly but redoing it would be highly expensive and time consuming. As is often the case (especially when your home is as old as the one we own), there are other more pressing concerns to deal with. So I keep raking the roof and putting panty-hose filled with ice melt (a certain kind we know won't damage the shingles) to minimize the ice dam problem. Still, melting from our upper roof onto a lower section of the roof causes ice to build up (quicker than any other area of the roof). It's on our list of Things We'd Like To Get Done One Day but finance-wise probably won't get tackled anytime soon.

Re:How durable?

[Ol Olsoc]

Well I'd be wary of "new" home construction technology too - especially for critical components such as a roof. In my case our new custom home was plumbed using fancy Kitec potable water piping. Guess what, it got recalled because the fittings and pipes tended to burst. Now I'm spending nearly $20k to repipe the entire home. It has to be done otherwise we'll have no buyers when we put the home up for sale. Oh I'll get some of that money back from a class action lawsuit, but probably only pennies on the dollar.

I had plastic tubing as well on an earlier home. I'm not certain what your brand's downfall was, but mine had a metal ferrule on it to hold the fastener, that on the hot water side would dig into the tubing a tiny little bit every time the temperature on the hot water pipes thermally cycled. After maybe 10 years, it owrked it's way into the piping and instant leak. After a lot of damage, I got pissed and installed copper.

And I think the payoff for me was a couple dollars. Lawyers did okay on it - they made millions.

Re:How durable?

[Teun]

The City of Ontario (Yeah I know, not the USofA) is about level with Genoa in Italy (+44deg), Southern Ontario is about level with Rome.
In Europe solar works out fine way up north, I live in a rather rainy = cloudy place at +52deg. and the investment it pays back in around 7 years.
That's better than the bank who pays 0.5%.BR> But remember in Europe we have high taxes on energy, something we don't pay on our own generation.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

That fits my understanding for nominal operation to. In the case of an extended power outage, you would need to manually throw a switch to disconnect from the grid (and perhaps connect to batteries) to utilize the panels. Those setups do obviously cost extra, and the companies that offer '0 down' for solar panels (aka long contracts) don't generally offer that option.

Re:How durable?

[Ol Olsoc]

As well, there are the incalculables. Access to the electricity. We have a lot of power outages in my area. And with the whacked weather, we are sometimes out for a while - one time almost a week. Your own power source can make life a lot nicer. It was nice to have lights and furnace that week. Note I wasn't using solar that week, just another power source.

Most, if not all grid-tied solar systems require that the grid is actually working. So if you get a power outage, your solar panels won't help you.

I have wondered if you could get the solar inverter to start producing electricity by disconnecting from the grid and connecting a generator (or even a large UPS) to the house wiring.

I have no intention of tying to the grid by the time I'm finished.

Seems odd however tht the device is designed to fail at the time it is needed most. What exactly fails that stops the power? I have a shutoff system for my emergency generator.

Re:How durable?

[MightyMartian]

Yeah, that does suck. It's why I'm so nervous about using newer products while they're, well, new. I've done some re-plumbing with PEX pipes, and I know they're old school now, but to be honest with you, part of my still prefers good old fashioned copper for the water lines and ABS for the sewer. They're tried and true, and providing you know how to sweat a fitting, copper will last for years. But it is pricier.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should have a look at a map. New York is at roughly the same latitude a northern Spain and central Italy.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the costs involved these days if your home catches file you might as well demo it and build a new one. Of the dozen or so home fires (mostly with asphalt roofs mind you) in my area that I can think of only two were partly rebuilt, one where only the front half burnt so they kept the back half and rebuilt the front (basically a demo) and the other where the second story burnt so they simply chopped it off and put a roof on the first story (again effectively a demo). Maybe a non-metal roof might save some of your possessions but I doubt enough of them to justify all of the hassles.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably they would only need to heat when ice/snow was coming down. Should be a very small percentage of "winter" time. And they would presumably would produce electricity when not having to heat to shed the snow/ice. So the storage medium would be pretty minimal.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

If batteries get cheap enough, it may be economical to to have enough battery storage to store all of the solar energy generated during a day. Then feeding back into the grid would not be necessary. Of course, it still would be preferable to be able to sell back to the grid. However, if the power companies decide to try to block solar by preventing grid feed-in, this might be an option.

Anonymous because I moderated.

Re:How durable?

[whoever57]

Seems odd however tht the device is designed to fail at the time it is needed most.

Firstly, you have a misconception: residential grid-tied systems are not intended to be backup systems. When it is most needed is in the afternoon, on a hot, sunny day, so that it can offset the electricity used by my, or my neighbours' AC systems.

What exactly fails that stops the power? I have a shutoff system for my emergency generator.

Nothing fails. The inverter is configured to shut off the system in the absence of grid power. This is the intended behaviour, not a failure mode.

I don't know if the wiring and connection code would allow for a solar system that, instead of shutting down, disconnected the house from the grid and continued operation, but I suspect that this would add significant cost to the solar installation.

Re: How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

SolarEdge combined with Powerwall offers both, with automatic switching. You have to buy an optional module and use a pony panel, but that's about it. And yes, it feeds the grid when there's no blackout.

Lots of other companies do this too, but they tend to be more complicated and have lower efficiency.

Re:How durable?

[RKThoadan]

I can address the "What exactly fails that stops the power" portion, at least indirectly. It stops because it's designed that way as a safety feature. If the power is out there is probably a line down somewhere. That line will require someone to fix it. If you are feeding power in you will potentially electrocute the person trying to fix the line.

Re:How durable?

[rahvin112]

The solar panel surface is usually glass. Snow doesn't stick to glass, even in freezing temperatures if the weight exceeds a certain amount it will break free and slide off. With a glass roof I doubt you would ever need the roof rake.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of Shingles do you use in the US that you have to replace them so often?

Replacing roofs in Germany is a rather rare activity. I doubt it happens more often than every 50 years.

Cheap crap in some cases, this being America.

In others, I will grant that windstorms in the US may be very common, and there is a greater degree of sun exposure from the lower latitudes.

Re:How durable?

[DerekLyons]

And there you have it. Immediately upon any new like this, some slashdotter comes on and tries to derail the idea with their personal situation.

And there you have it - some asshole getting bent out of shape because a perfectly reasonable question was asked about something that millions of Americans deal with annually.

Re:How durable?

[Ol Olsoc]

What kind of Shingles do you use in the US that you have to replace them so often?

Replacing roofs in Germany is a rather rare activity. I doubt it happens more often than every 50 years.

We have different grades of shingles. The tradional/typical style for houses built say in the last 60 years is a fiberglass mat impregnated with tar, with tiny rocks of some desired color impressed into them. I think it is right up there in suckage with drywall. What kills mine is the low pitch on my roof. Debris lands and stays on it. Doing a little bit of damage each time, it's hammered by the sun during the hottest parts of the day. With that low pitch I have to get up and blow leaves and all the other crap that lands on it. Over a remarkably short time the little colored rocks in itwash off, and it starts curling.

There are a few houses nearby that have mansard roofs which last a lot longer I've seen some with shingles that are over 50 years old, and if you use cedar shakes, they are going to last the life of the house.

Re:How durable?

[rch7]

More accurate would be to look at solar insolation map, it isn't just about latitude. Yes, it would work anywhere as long as somebody pays for it, I'm not claiming that it would not. But it is more like milking of other ratepayers, not self sustainable project. What is use of electricity generator that provides power half of the year only?

Re:How durable?

[Ol Olsoc]

Firstly, you have a misconception: residential grid-tied systems are not intended to be backup systems. When it is most needed is in the afternoon, on a hot, sunny day, so that it can offset the electricity used by my, or my neighbours' AC systems.

When I am finished, my system will be completely disconnected form the grid. Part of why I'm putting one in is that the grid isn't terribly reliable around here any more.

So why on earth would I put in a system that cuts me off as soon as grid power fails?

Nothing fails.

Exactly. That was my point in asking the dumb question. But we have enough outages around here that it would be silly to install anything that goes away with it. And I'm not doing this for money, I'm doing it for reliability. Now when we have an outage, the house is disconnected from the grid, and the generator is kicked in. That is specifically what I want, phasing in a backup system before completel disconnect, only with solar instead of petrofuel.

Re:How durable?

[Ol Olsoc]

And there you have it. Immediately upon any new like this, some slashdotter comes on and tries to derail the idea with their personal situation.

And there you have it - some asshole getting bent out of shape because a perfectly reasonable question was asked about something that millions of Americans deal with annually.

Yes, I am an asshole, but at least I know myself - You probably think you're pretty awesome.

Re:How durable?

[amiga3D]

I've never heard of quality well installed asphalt shingles not lasting at least 15 years. My Dad's last install lasted almost 25 and I know the last house I had shingled was in 1995 and although I sold it 6 years ago I just drove by it a month ago and it still has the same shingles on it. I've seen shingles fail through bad installation practices. The set I installed in 95 I sat and watched the men installing it and when they pulled the old roof they started to drive the roofing tacks into the wood. I jumped all over them and made them pull those. Nails will work their way out of wood and cause leaks after time and I wasn't having that. You have to watch contractors because so often the problems they cause wont show for a decade or more and they know it.

Re:How durable?

[xlsior]

In Northern Europe, shingles are typically rigid clay or ceramic, and last pretty much forever. In much of the US, a standard shingle is a few mm thick flexible tar-coated mat, which degrades and starts cracking over time (especially in areas with big temperature fluctuations). Typical advertised lifespan is 20-30 years, but can be less depending on the weather in your area. The US shingles are cheaper, but will cost you a lot more In the long run.

Re:How durable?

[LunaticTippy]

Fascinating. In dry western wooded mountain areas people are installing metal roofs because it is one of the most resistant to catching on fire during one of the wildfires. A friend was told by the fire department to install a metal roof!

I suppose it could work both ways. A fire that starts inside your house will have no chance to get out (letting water and firemen in) but a fire that starts outside won't be able to get in easily.

Re:How durable?

[slew]

What kind of Shingles do you use in the US that you have to replace them so often?

Replacing roofs in Germany is a rather rare activity. I doubt it happens more often than every 50 years.

Cheap crap in some cases, this being America.

In others, I will grant that windstorms in the US may be very common, and there is a greater degree of sun exposure from the lower latitudes.

Some parts of the USA are prone to get hail which causes recurring damage on roofs. Fortunately I no longer live in one of those areas. Insurance companies really don't like paying for hail damage on roofs.

Allegedly, modern solar panels are more resistant to hail damage than typical composite asphalt roofing material (and probably better than wood shingle/shake or spanish tile roofing too) so if over a few year period, it helps save a roof repair (or two), that might be a thing on the plus column for these new fangled solar roofs...

I'm interested in what this solar roof would be like, but if it is like a metal roof, I don't know if that would be any more problem free. Metal roofs can have quite a few problem in residential installations (e.g., condensation, noise, ice dams), so it isn't a panacea. Also the current generation of metal roofs are generally painted with IR reflective coatings, but current generation solar panels are generally transparent to IR. I don't know about solar roofs and there may be some attic heat issues that might be specific issues with a solar roof if they aren't much different than current generation solar panels.

Re:How durable?

[jjn1056]

How about clay tile roofs? That's what I have, and it looks nice but I couldn't figure if it was going to help in a fire or not.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some parts of the USA are prone to get hail which causes recurring damage on roofs. Fortunately I no longer live in one of those areas. Insurance companies really don't like paying for hail damage on roofs.

Indeed, mine finally ended up switching to a depreciated value plan for that kind of damage. Don't know if Europe has any of that problem. Either Hail, or insurance companies.

Allegedly, modern solar panels are more resistant to hail damage than typical composite asphalt roofing material (and probably better than wood shingle/shake or spanish tile roofing too) so if over a few year period, it helps save a roof repair (or two), that might be a thing on the plus column for these new fangled solar roofs...

I'm interested in what this solar roof would be like, but if it is like a metal roof, I don't know if that would be any more problem free. Metal roofs can have quite a few problem in residential installations (e.g., condensation, noise, ice dams), so it isn't a panacea. Also the current generation of metal roofs are generally painted with IR reflective coatings, but current generation solar panels are generally transparent to IR. I don't know about solar roofs and there may be some attic heat issues that might be specific issues with a solar roof if they aren't much different than current generation solar panels.

This study which obviously isn't on whatever roofing Tesla/SolarCity plans, does indicate there is some savings, and I suppose if they designed their system right, they could do even better.

I'm looking into putting some radiant barrier foam panels under my roofing material when I get that done, mostly because panels aren't an option for me, and my power provider is TVA nuclear and hydro, so it's marginal in terms of utility, let alone costs, or tax savings, but cutting the heat to my attic where my HVAC is could be worth it.

I could just do it in the attic, but I'm not sure how much that'll help. Or if it'll be more difficult, since there's of substructure under there that will complicate things. At least I can have a uniform set up if I put it under the shingles, though I will have to worry about the sun-exposed South side.

Re:How durable?

[gerf]

Storms here are more violent, with wind gusts hitting 80mph/130kph, and that rips shingles off. We don't get as much snow, but we do get ice storms that leave a layer of ice more than 1inch/25mm thick. Trees break under the weight and fall onto houses. We use asphalt rather than tile, which inherently lasts a shorter period of time. Think 20 to 30 years. Some old houses had slate-rock, and last as long as your tile, but can also break. Some roofs are literally wood shingle, and those are just disgusting and leak. Oh, and the materials for shingles has changed over the years due to environmental regulations, so that you can't get a real 50-year roof anymore. BTW, I worked in Germany for a month and a half. Beautiful country, but dang is everything expensive.

Re:How durable?

[morethanapapercert]

As an interim fix, I'd suggest you install some roof de-icing cables. Yes, it will use a fair bit of electrical power, but in my opinion, being able to handle ice dams automatically are easily worth the expenditure. Raking the roof does accelerate the wear and tear on the roof after all, because of the way it knocks the embedded gravel off traditional asphalt shingles. Plus, dealing with ice dams manually requires that you be home to do it.

Re:How durable?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's infuriating to me is that we've had no issues with the recalled piping over 10 years since the home was built. The only leaks have been in areas with copper fittings around the water heater. But because of the bad pipe's history, many insurers will not insure the home nor will mortgage companies give a loan. If I were a buyer, I'd avoid that.

You mentioned PEX. That's exactly what will be used during the repiping. Because the we are in a flat roofed house with no attic space, drywall repair will be very extensive. All of the original piping in the concrete foundation will be abandoned. I keep telling myself it could be worse, we could have aluminum wiring or the house could be slowly sliding down a hill.

Re:How durable?

[vandamme]

Metal roofs can have quite a few problem in residential installations (e.g., condensation, noise, ice dams), so it isn't a panacea.

Having lived under a metal roof for ten years, I respectfully respond that you're full of shit. There's no condensation if properly ventilated, we barely notice if it's raining hard, and ice dams would just sit there instead of leaking in like a shingle roof.

Re:How durable?

[WindBourne]

These are not shingles. Imagine the 4x8 sheet of plywood being replaced with an integrated unit. No tar paper. No shingles.

Re:How durable?

[DusterBar]

The reason for turning off the solar energy generation is that they don't want power pushed up into the grid when the grid is down. That can cause further damage and, even worse, injure or kill the line workers trying to fix the outage.

Now, a better system does exist where it will stop pushing to the grid when the grid is down and just provide power locally. However, that has other problems since you now need to have something to handle power imbalance - you don't want to brown-out or over-voltage the system in your house so you will need a big battery (guess what Tesla makes :-) ) to deal with that. So now you have a complex switch for feeding the grid / pulling from the grid (an automatic transfer switch) and some batteries (or large capacitors, albeit at that scale they are scary) and that adds to the cost (but also gets you the grid-down benefits)

Does it come in Smoke and Mirror colors?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just have to say, I am very impressed with Musk's marketing!

Re:Does it come in Smoke and Mirror colors?

[DirkDaring]

Why smoke and mirrors? Care to explain...

Re:Does it come in Smoke and Mirror colors?

[Ol Olsoc]

Why smoke and mirrors? Care to explain...

Old farte syndrome. Hates changes, and them kids keep walkin' on his lawn.

Re:Does it come in Smoke and Mirror colors?

[thinkwaitfast]

I have Old farte syndrome.

OTOH, I proposed this as a design project in college and am the same age as Musk. It's good to ask these questions. Years of scientific training taught me to be skeptical.

Re:Does it come in Smoke and Mirror colors?

[Ol Olsoc]

I have Old farte syndrome.

OTOH, I proposed this as a design project in college and am the same age as Musk. It's good to ask these questions. Years of scientific training taught me to be skeptical.

I'm as skeptical as they come. I just find simple problems that already have solutions to be a tad dreary.

Who knows - perhaps I over-reacted, and sinned egregiously to th comment.

But after a while, it all begins to sound like people deciding that EV's are a non-starter because how you gonna charge them? - and yet Alaska has electrical outlets at parking meters in towns to keep petrofueled cars engine blocks warmed. Or that the batteries in the Tesla are incapable of handing cold weather, and will run their power down more quickly - all the while ignoring all of the gyrations needed to go through to keep petrofueld vehicles in shape at those same temperatures and that they suck up a lot more fuel in the winter because the wintermix fuel contains butanol which has a higher vapor pressure but lower energy content per liter, and they blame the combined drop 100 percent on ethanol. Or that solar cells self distruct the moment their warranty goes out, or that every single part of a windmill farm must be replaced every 20 years.

A healthy sketicism toward utter bullshit is very healthy.

But hey! I could be wrong about all of the slash dotters sounding like they miss the horse and buggy days.

I've sort-of-being looking into this myself.

[queazocotal]

As DIY. Solar panels are not wholly ridiculous any more as roofing material - at least for smaller roofs.
For example, I have a 5*20m roof.
Wholly replacing the skin of this with solar panels would cost around $6K. This is a large number - but not hugely much in context of the whole roof replacement. Optimising for cost per area, rather than cost per watt, and finding some nice way to fix with integral insulation, for example could greatly speed assembly of the roof.

been done

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar shingles have been on the market for many years.

Not new

[stabiesoft]

These types of roofs have been around since 2009 or 10. Dow, corning, gaf and now a bunch of chinese imports. Dow is getting out of the market. They never caught on, but I am sure musk and his marketing machine will make all the difference.

Re:Not new

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone was not the first touch screen phone, there was the LG Prada before that. They didn't do it right and now no one even remembers that. So yes, doing it right matters a lot, as you stated in the (salty) latter part of your statement.

Re:Not new

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing it right is harder than most people think. I will wait and see. If done right and for the right price, this is a game changer, if done poorly this will be nothing but a liability. This will be a big ticket item, and unlike a car, will not function as a fashion accessory. The ability to establish anything other than an economic rationale for purchase will be hard (unlike a Tesla).

The main problem I see is that on all but the most simple homes (least likely to have money for solar), roofs are custom, complex, and large while solar panels are cheapest to install in fixed configuration packages. The fixed packages save money because all components can be mass produced and laborers can be trained to complete the work faster and with less errors. The exact solution and cost will make all the difference but right now its hard to tell.

Re:Not new

[kaiser423]

They very well might. Never underestimate the power of timing combined with marketing. It's what made the iPhone and countless other products.

I looked at the Dow and other systems, and they were quite expensive and not really wanting to talk to individual home owners, and when they did it was ridiculously obtuse and no installers would touch the things. They were 5 years too early and didn't have enough juice to make it happen, both likely inside of the company to essentially go all in, nor with public mind-share and installer credibility.

Cells are much cheaper now, home solar is much more of a known commodity, and you have a company with nation-wide installation presence fronting the install and handling all of that, and a man with free-press touting this. It definitely could have legs. If Musk does one thing well, it's identify things that are good ideas and feasible, but everyone is timid about, and then just take that idea and go balls-to-the-wall all out bet everything on it. Thus, he becomes a driving force, and every success adds to his confidence and ability to take massive bets and the cycle continues.

Re:Not new

[Orgasmatron]

When a company as big as Dow does something like this and totally skips the implementation phase, I usually suspect either patent protection, PR stunt or regulator appeasement. Not that incompetence is unheard of.

Re:Not new

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk isn't the first in the arena in most of the games he plays but... but... but.... "El0n Musksss!!!!1111!!!"

Sadly technology, discovery and "innovation" is like that. If history shows anything it's that "Eureka!" moments are few and far between but a large portion of the population like to think that it's what really spurs technology forward. No different than the Nikola Tesla cult likes to think that Tesla pulled all of these innovations out of his ass when you can clearly show them that it was a lot of little steps and not even Tesla was the one who got it right. People need their supermen for some reason.

Re:Not new

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point about most roofs being large, custom and complex. But SolarCity is in the installation business, so they know all about roof shapes. I am expecting they will come up with some way of customizing the technology so you can install it on at least most roofs.

Re:Not new

[LunaticTippy]

I work for a big company and incompetence is de rigeur. If you saw how bad nearly everyone is at their job it would make you cry.

Re:Not new

[Anonymous Coward]

Huge company that sells mainly to industry and contractors completely misunderstands and mishandles the consumer market?

Yeah, I'd say that's not unheard of.

Solar Roofs Are Nothing New ... In Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar roofs have been around a while in Europe.
Here's one website with some good pictures:

http://www.windandsun.co.uk/pr...

Find out more with this google search for solar frame integration roof.

And for new construction...

[gQuigs]

I'd really like to start seeing houses built with solar instead of just a tack-on after the fact.

Re:And for new construction...

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest issue for most people is that houses generally are not sited with solar in mind. To get the most efficiency you want a large South facing roof area. I have a large roof which is about 20% covered with solar, but I had to settle for them being oriented to the East since I did not have big enough South facing area. This cuts their power output by about 20 - 25% compared to South facing.

In new construction, starting with solar roofing vs shingles and choosing a house design to maximize Southern roof exposure will start to make a lot of sense.

Re:And for new construction...

[queazocotal]

Though if you can reduce the price by 20-25%, suddenly it becomes as economic as it was to put panels on east as on south. Plus - east-facing panels output at a different time of day somewhat than south - which would do good things for the grid.

Re:And for new construction...

[thinkwaitfast]

There was an analysis done last year showing that south facing panels are not necessarily the best. It doesn't match optimally with the demand curve.

Re:And for new construction...

[rch7]

But South faced panels are perfect if you want to exploit legacy residential electricity rate structure when you have fixed per kWh rate around the clock and little monthly charges. Now if you would get typical rate structures for commercial customers with spot prices or some $40/kW/month demand charges and lower per kWh rate, even West facing panels would not make as much sense.

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I already have a solar roof. It's on top of my house, facing the solar system

A beautiful solar roof

[Vroem]

Finally. Unless you have a really ugly roof, sticking solar panels on top of it makes it worse. And for new buildings it's just a waste of materials.

Self-driving shingles

[PopeRatzo]

This will be the Uber of solar roofs. It's a game changer.

Re:Self-driving shingles

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of my roof does not face the sun. I even have mold growing on some of my less than sunny shingles. Even the parts of it that face the sun cannot benefit because of the shade that results from having trees around my house. Why are solar panels all the rage? A solar water heater can offer significant benefit:
    https://www.energystar.gov/products/water_heaters/water_heater_solar

Re:Self-driving shingles

[PopeRatzo]

Most of my roof does not face the sun.

My roof faces Zeta Reticuli.

Re:Somebody quote that "reasons why not" list at h

[Anonymous Coward]

And all those reasons are why solar roofs don't exist everywhere else in the world.

Oh wait, they do.

Solar bubble?

[ErichTheRed]

I wonder how much of this solar build-out is due to an economic bubble in the industry. We've been looking into solar since we have a new roof, and the impression we've gotten both from SolarCity and a parade of local contractors is that they're all lining up before the (very lucrative) tax credits go away. Neither methods (leasing or paying for the system outright) seems like a particularly good deal. If you go the SolarCity route, they take your tax credit _and_ charge you monthly for your panels. If you go the local guy route, you pay (in my mind) hugely inflated prices, and they're trying to cover that up by saying "look at how much of a tax credit you're getting!" since it's a percentage of the price of the system.

I'm guessing all these local solar companies are going to be gone as soon as the tax credits dry up...there's no way they can continue selling systems for the prices they're charging. My impression is that these local solar companies are run by the typical hustler type who always has their eye on the next big money making opportunity, and will be on to the next one as soon as the business is inconvenient. It's too bad, because I'd definitely go for it if they would charge reasonable rates and not try to dupe idiotic homeowners who can't see past the tax credit carrot. In my mind, SolarCity is even more of a flat-out scam; they're the ones offering "no money out of pocket!" conversions, conveniently forgetting to mention that you're locked into a leasing contract with them. It's the perfect setup for them - the same mentality that goes into car leasing. Can't afford an S-class Mercedes? No problem, $999 a month, look, it's cheaper than a loan! Such a deal! Sign today!!

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

> No problem, $999 a month, look, it's cheaper than a loan! Such a deal! Sign today!!

You are misinformed. The solar-city model is not about wasting money on a depreciating asset like a car. It is about replacing your electricity bill with a cheaper lease bill. You aren't throwing away money via a shell game, you are saving money in a straight-forward way. And, unlike a car lease, at the end you own the panels and they will continue to generate electricity with no bills for a long time afterwards.

Re:Solar bubble?

[queazocotal]

It's complex.
Anti-dumping rules have made solar panels in the US amongst the most expensive in the world.
However.
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/... - as one example has panels down at $.89/W.

If you're in an area that needs large amounts of AC in primarily sunny periods, a replacement well insulated roof could do really nice things for your bills by removing the daytime component of your bills entirely, even without requiring any subsidy.

Re:Solar bubble?

[kaiser423]

Yup. And with the current tax credit setup (in my state at least), if you're replacing your roof you can essentially roll a large part of that cost into the solar tax credit $$$, so people line up like crazy to do it....I haven't looked into the exact words in the law, but tons of people do it and essentially get solar on their roofs for almost nothing.

Re:Solar bubble?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It does seem to be the case that any business with 'EZ-franchise' opportunities or heavy use of consumer credit gets pretty slimy; but it's hard to dismiss it as wholly analogous to a 'bubble' when panel prices have continued to fall and people continue to be pretty interested in using electricity.

The vendors might well be chasing a bubble, I suspect that, in the end, it will turn out that selling "own your own business opportunities" will prove more lucrative than owning one of those "opportunities"; but the buyers of the solar capacity (while quite possibly paying the early-adopter penalty for jumping in before the product has matured) aren't really good bubble candidates.

Re:Solar bubble?

[ledow]

This is what some people have been saying for over a decade.

I've worked in many schools and lots of them get snakeoil salesmen for everything from solar power to "power conditioners" (that "save money on running your flourescent lights!") and all sorts. The ones who have been approached for solar panels on roofs (and they have a LOT of roof space) have either refused it, or regretted it later.

One school I know has panels that barely pull in enough to run one of their on-site servers. They have it "because it looks good", green credentials and all that.

But while you are subsidising something, it usually means it's not a viable business model on its own. Look at all the other green energy methods and they all have huge subsidies. We are burning cash instead of coal to reduce carbon emissions, not generate power efficiently.

All the large solar panels that I price up for my area are useless and barely pay for themselves within their lifetime. You can't sell that. Not once you include problems with ownership of the roof (is it part of the mortgaged property or not), electrical connection, and so forth.

Sure, I can run a few lightbulbs in a shed from a panel on its roof, for a hundred GBP or so. But apart from that, it's not anywhere near as good as people make out. Even if the technology exists, the commercialised versions on small home scales aren't viable in much of the world.

I once priced up a HUGE wind turbine sold for home use in my local DIY store. If a force-nine gale blew for 5 years straight and it never needed installation, planning permission, maintenance or anything doing to it, it might just pay for its purchase cost before the warranty expired.

People loved it, everyone looked at it, a few talked about buying it. Nobody did. They took it away after a few years and I asked - they sold basically zero of them from that store.

Solar is the same. While subsidies and selling crappy, unreliable, variable, low-voltage, low-power back to the grid exist, they are okay. Just okay. As soon as those things disappear, it's game over. But, hey, "the next generation" will be more efficient, cheaper, etc. etc. etc. as always. Just replace everything you buy every few years.

I'm sure it's possible to live off the grid, to have solar power be "the thing" that you live from. But it's far from easy, not cheap, requires a lot of work, investment and surface area, and involves a lot of sacrifices.

Solar roofs? Only selling to people who happen to be changing the entire roof (which they likely want done quite quickly and cheaply), rather than selling to everyone who already HAS a roof? That just seems suicidal. Solar panels are identical, modular, and can be put onto anything. A solar roof would have to be bespoke, supplied quickly, and be inside the cost of a roof plus a handful of panels. And you can spread the cost of the roof and panels quite simply by buying modules as you can afford them. An all-or-nothing roof would only be put on new-builds, and likely would have to be designed for.

Re:Solar bubble?

[AmiMoJo]

It's an investment. Like putting better insulation in, or a more efficient heating/aircon system, or paying more for a diesel engine because it's cheaper to run (er...)

Depending on where you live it takes more or less time to start paying off, but in northern Europe and similar climates you should be looking at 5 years to pay for the system and then it's all profit. It's a very safe investment too, guaranteed pay back and as energy prices rise it will almost certainly keep getting better.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is too big to crash the market like the Housing Bubble, the solar lease/PPA market is the exact same bubble. They take all the solar loans, package them up by credit score (lol) and sell them as loans to the highest bidder (biggest idiot). I am guessing these loans are bought by all sorts of funds that are not investing their own money (see your retirement). These loans are too new and currently have low defaults. They are claiming 1% default rates.

As the loans/PPAs season several things will happen:
1) The contract rate escalates by ~3% a year. This is going to cause an 80% increase in your rate. Someone may decide to stop paying solar city if their utility rate is lower.

2) New better tech, excess supply, and a saturated market will lower rates panels can be sold/leased at - not increase them like the current contracts state. CA already has over 8% of roofs with solar today.

3) People will realize they have to transfer or buy out the contract when a house is sold, which limits the buyer pool (after #1 and #2 happens), creating a liability

4) People's circumstances change (see housing crisis). If someone isn't paying their mortgage, they won't pay solar city either

5) For PPA's - Panels become less efficient over time so the amount of power generated will go down. Homeowners have no incentive to keep panels clean and running efficiently. For Leases - people will be pissed when the panels don't perform and their power rate is sky high.

6) Utilities will actually start to reign in excess costs for the first time in history because they have a competitor. Do not under estimate the current bloat in power rates. Expect the cost for utilities to produce power to decline and think about relation with #1 above.

Re:Solar bubble?

[tomhath]

essentially get solar on their roofs for almost nothing.

No, they get solar on their roof by forcing someone else to pay for it. Subsidies don't reduce the cost - they just move it around.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

One school I know has panels that barely pull in enough to run one of their on-site servers. They have it "because it looks good", green credentials and all that.

Um, so? That doesn't mean anything, they could have just spent the money on a very small section of their roof, and that's a choice, but it doesn't mean they couldn't have done more or better.

But while you are subsidising something, it usually means it's not a viable business model on its own. Look at all the other green energy methods and they all have huge subsidies. We are burning cash instead of coal to reduce carbon emissions, not generate power efficiently.

That's because assessing the costs of burning coal is difficult to impossible, what with it not being possible to track the harm done by coal power emissions.

Since coal has millions of years of stored energy in it, it's effectively subsidized not by cash, but by the result of chance history leading to it being a long-term stored energy source. It's hard to fight that, all you have to do is dig it up. But that comes with a price, both at extraction and consumption. People don't give a shit about extraction as long as it's far away from them, and they can barely see the harm of consumption.

Your inability to realize that may be why you're confused about the assessment of viability. It's more complicated than your "Oh they're getting money" reasoning.

Even if the technology exists, the commercialised versions on small home scales aren't viable in much of the world.

Oh goodness, if only most of the world's population didn't live in Antarctica.

I once priced up a HUGE wind turbine sold for home use in my local DIY store. If a force-nine gale blew for 5 years straight and it never needed installation, planning permission, maintenance or anything doing to it, it might just pay for its purchase cost before the warranty expired.

People loved it, everyone looked at it, a few talked about buying it. Nobody did. They took it away after a few years and I asked - they sold basically zero of them from that store.

Those things are a joke, an overpriced joke that is about as valid as half the other stuff they have in that store in terms of whether or not it's worth getting.

They have nothing to do with the price of actual wind power, or anything else. It's just a marketing scam, they may have a dozen or more in those places.

Solar roofs? Only selling to people who happen to be changing the entire roof (which they likely want done quite quickly and cheaply), rather than selling to everyone who already HAS a roof? That just seems suicidal. Solar panels are identical, modular, and can be put onto anything. A solar roof would have to be bespoke, supplied quickly, and be inside the cost of a roof plus a handful of panels. And you can spread the cost of the roof and panels quite simply by buying modules as you can afford them. An all-or-nothing roof would only be put on new-builds, and likely would have to be designed for.

All depends on the Engineering. Most roofs are already custom work, so it's a moot point. Heck, for all I know, Solar City is just designing a product that doesn't require as much of an underlaying roof structure as their current designs. They're just calling it a roof for...reasons related to marketing.

Re:Solar bubble?

[kobaz]

Totally Agree.

Solar sounded interesting when I saw a dealer at a local trade show and signed up for a free quote. I have the whole home-office shebang and use 1500kwh monthly, so I would need a sizable system. SolarCity quoted me a no money down something like $275 a month to cover 1200kwh, and I would be paying the grid for the remainder. Including paying the $50-75 additional to the grid, I was looking at a net savings of -$55/monthly off my current bill! What a DEAL! I would love to sign a contract that creates a loss for me every month.

And! If I want to sell the house (my first house, w/possibly growing family), now the new owners have to either buy the lease outright for some thousands or suck up the $275/month lease for the remainder of the term, which will be generating way more than your average 2.5 people need.

But wait, there's more! With inflation and utility cost increases, you'll have "free" electricity in 20 years after it's "paid off". Of course by then, half your panels are defunct and your inverters have blown up, requiring a whole new system for the low low price of $275 a month.

The more I looked into it, the more I realized I can put $275 a month into a money market and be way more ahead in 20 years than with solar (generally I put more like 500+, but lets just use that). I then thought hmmmm... what if I just outright bought the system? So some local contractors gave me the spiel and for $40-50,000 minus tax credits, i would be good to go. But wait, you can lease to own! For the low low price of $125 a month and $7500 down.... this still doesn't make any sense because during the first 10-12 years I'm still at a net loss, and by then I've lost enough efficiency that the already slow gains are minimal.

I went through the same thing with my parents house, and a few neighbors who got quotes as well. For all the homes and quotes I've seen, most likely the majority of the population would really not benefit in $$ from solar unless they buy rock solid panels and are willing to wait 20 years for a good solid positive return.

I'm all for saving the planet and everything, but solar prices have to really come down to have it make sense for the 'average joe'.

Re:Solar bubble?

[kobaz]

So, let's run some calculations

Assume you're breaking even with your utility costs versus solar

Start with $1000, a reasonable first investment, or a reasonable minimum up front cost for solar
Put $275/month into a 1% Money Market, or into solar

This is pretty simplistic and compares a basic lease-only solar.

Lets do a really rough guesstimate and some basic math assuming that electric will be an average of 25% more expensive in 10 years. Let's assume that electric costs bumped by 25% the day after your system was installed (best case imaginable for solar, but highly unlikely)

Year 1 MM: +$4328 In your pocket
Year 1 Solar: $825 In your Pocket in theory (Fixed solar cost, versus increasing electric, which just went up 25%)

10 Years of Electric Costs Avoided: $8160

Year 10 MM: $35,817 In your pocket
Year 10 Solar: +$8160 In your Pocket in theory (Fixed solar cost, versus increasing electric)

Let's assume another 25% increase at 10 years + 1 day

Another 10 Years of Electric Costs Avoided: $10,290

Year 20 MM: $74,276
Year 20 Solar Totals, First 10 years plus last 10 years = +$18,450 in your pocket in theory (Fixed solar cost, versus increasing electric)

This is super basic math with super basic assumptions, but you get the picture.

Your basic 1% Money Market is the clear winner here. And this is assuming an incredible best case for solar: two massive, 25% rate increases during the 20 year install. And 1% is a bare minimum for a "good" investment, ideally you'll find at least 5%, and a good overall is 8-10% return if you're into max growth. Your 20 year return on a cash investment (or even real estate) is looking A LOT better than solar. Even if the total 20 year money in your pocket savings for solar DOUBLED to $36,900, your basic 1% market investment is STILL a clear winner.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

>are run by the typical hustler type who always has their eye on the next big money making opportunity

Although solar is a great tech, it is being 'handled' by just such entities as you describe above. And that makes it a turn off for the consumer in the know. Basically, investing institutions & loan agencies have bought local/state installers- absorbed them under a national brand, (think SunRun), and then use this tech as a vehicle for 20 year loans.

Although not evil, it would help the customer know this and that the 'monthly solar-elec bill' they receive by the 'solar company' is actually your loan repayment. Not a utility bill.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

One school I know has panels that barely pull in enough to run one of their on-site servers. They have it "because it looks good", green credentials and all that.

That probably means it's a combination of inefficient panels being on an unsuitable roof (pitch/direction). A north facing roof isn't going to produce much for example.

Which is frankly a problem with the SolarCity idea. It's fine to use them as your roofing material to put it inline so it looks nice and uses the full area from edge to edge, but you'll want another material on other parts of the roof as it's unlikely to pay for itself in every location. You'll have the profits from the south roof paying for the north one and not be saving anything as a result.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it depends on the company. Around here, there are 5 companies the last I looked. One is a national chain (A), one is a roofing company turned solar installer (B), two are scammy businesses (C & D), and one is actually reputable (E) and has been doing installs for decades, was recommended by my roofer and has done all the major installs for government buildings and other big projects. Want to guess the price break down? A wanted me to rent the system, B had the best warranty for reroofing for a problem but had high unit cost, C had the most expensive system (150% of the next most expensive), D was the cheapest (a third of C and half the average) but had more warning signs I could count. E quoted me a price that was under the average, had the lowest $/Watt for the panels and offered me different versions (panels big inverter, microinverters, storage included, use it or lose it, and a couple others). Ended up not going with them because they actively talked me out of solar because their estimates of how much we would get was too low and they'd rather lose business than get bad word of mouth.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as the oil company subsidies. At least this one has a chance of trickling a little benefit on us little people.

Re:Solar bubble?

[kaiser423]

Some of our schools essentially have "token" solar installs, and others have legitimate ones. The legitimate ones have reduced operating budget for the schools resulting in more money for actual education at the school. I don't know about the token ones, they probably don't do anything. When designed right, things work. When not, they don't.

Re:Solar bubble?

[thinkwaitfast]

It's not in your mind. All of the solar businesses that I've seen, granted only four, charge a ridiculous amount of money for doing a couple hours of trivial work. One wanted nearly $5k for doing work that took me 4 hours + $300 to get a certified electrician to sign off.

Re:Solar bubble?

[thinkwaitfast]

http://sunelec.com/solar-panel... is advertising grade A panels solar at $0.41/watt in pallet quantities (12kw).

Re:Solar bubble?

[MightyMartian]

They spread out the cost. And subsidies of one form or another have been critical to creating infrastructure. Last mile phone service wouldn't exist without real or effective subsidies, even if it is just right aways.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your math is dumb.

He said he was loosing money on solar city's offer, Whatever you are calculating has nothing to do with his circumstances. You've basically just made up some random numbers. Which is particularly ironic for someone attempting to portray themselves as doing a level-headed math-based analysis.

Re:Solar bubble?

[thinkwaitfast]

It is easy and relatively cheap, but you have to live in the right area. I assume since you use GBP you are in or near England. Bad idea. Someplace like the American southwest will have 2-3x more insolation making it 2-3x less expensive. I get 6 hours of good sunlight per day, 350 days a year and 12hours in the summer when it is needed the most (running the AC, by far the largest user of electricity in my house). 2.5kw of solar panels easily powers my house year round, it's invisible, nearly maintenance free (5 minutes/week battery check) and I have 30A of clean 120v sinewave power running into my breaker that feeds all the standard outlets. I could bring in electricity from the street, make one connection (two wires) and not know the difference.

It's funny you mention home wind turbines. The builder in the neighborhood where my parents bought their house offered a wind turbine option with their houses. In two square miles, there was only one person who chose this. I think it generated something like 25 watts when the wind blew (rarely). When they sold the house, the new owners took it down,

Re:Solar bubble?

[thinkwaitfast]

Solar price have come way down. My neighbors told me they paid $30/watt back in the 80's. You can now buy solar for $0.40/watt. The falling price in the material and equipment has been offset by the people who make money selling and installing systems. Something like $3/watt.

Re:Solar bubble?

[kobaz]

'He' meaning 'me'. I wonder if you noticed I was replying to my own comment. So, the math has everything to do with my circumstances.

Thanks.

None of these numbers are 'made up'. I'm doing estimates based on a projected 50% increase in utilities over the next 20 years, which seems to be the expectations based on the media.

Re:Solar bubble?

[edtice1559]

Are you sure? I don't think you own the panels at the end of a lease, but I've been wrong about SolarCity before.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. You do not own the panels at the end. And, in fact, their PUBLIC business plan (the one they tell investors) is to remove them and try to sell you on a new 20 year lease with an upgrade that with new (currently unavailable) tech will produce more electricity.

The person you responded to probably does not know that the initial PPA rate may be lower but the rate increases 3% per year, which is an 80% increase over the life of the PPA. You are also responsible for purchasing everything generated, even if you don't use it. If the rate to the grid is lower or net metering rules change you are SOL.

Re:Solar bubble?

[deadweight]

The numbers I got from the solar people assumed the commercial electrical rate went UP every year forever. It saved money past year 10 because commercial power went up every year. It could go DOWN just as easily. BTW - I used to sell and install wind and solar systems. They are 100% amazing on boats or off in the woods or other places out of reach of 10 cent/KW power.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another AC here, since the other one didn't bother to explain why you were being dumb, even aside from not identifying who was posting.

This is pretty simplistic and compares a basic lease-only solar.

Yes, you are being excessively simplistic, and it comes up rather quickly. Because your accounting is wrong, you are not looking at the situation as it would actually be, but throwing out numbers without thinking. At least, I hope so, I would rather you were thoughtless than deliberately concocting a deceptive scenario.

Year 1 MM: +$4328 In your pocket
Year 1 Solar: $825 In your Pocket in theory (Fixed solar cost, versus increasing electric, which just went up 25%)

You don't show your work, but I see the problem. You see, you are just assuming you have 275 dollars to invest every month, plus a basis start of 1000. But you're forgetting your electricity costs. Which you don't explicitly state, but based on your previous post, around 250-300 dollars seems about right.

That's basically consumption. The goal with solar is to change that consumption (and yes, I know you say you have a home office, but I can't say what income you get from that), to purchase of a production unit.

Look, your problem is not your assumptions, it's your bum-fucked accounting. You're magically pulling 275 dollars out of your ass to invest in a money market, not actually comparing the situation properly, where maybe you get 55 dollars or so a month to invest over what you would spend for the lease plus the extra electricity you need. 55 dollars a month is a mere 660 dollars, plus a bit of interest, but with the lease you still get ownership of a product, so that may be a net gain in the end, however I can't say what it's value will be without knowing more details.

Now if you want to ask what amount of money you could get if you were to invest 4300 dollars a year into solar panels, I'd say it would be more than 28 dollars of electricity, plus whatever you could sell the panels for in the end, but I can't say whether it would be better or not than some other investments. It would lack liquidity, so that's a downside.

Your specific situation, though, is a bit more complicated, but like I said, what you're forgetting is that you're replacing X$ dollars of electricity consumption with a lease purchase. Now it seems maybe that in your situtation, you'll still need more electricity, so it may be it'd end up costing more, but that might be because Solar City ran the numbers poorly, or your site is ill-suited, or whatever.

Still, your calculations are the wrong thing, since you leave out the fact that your electricity bills are a cost.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

'He' meaning 'me'. I wonder if you noticed I was replying to my own comment. So, the math has everything to do with my circumstances.

Thanks.

None of these numbers are 'made up'. I'm doing estimates based on a projected 50% increase in utilities over the next 20 years, which seems to be the expectations based on the media.

You're not making up numbers in that sense, but more in the sense of making up an outcome not based on your real situation.

That 75,000 dollars? 66,000 of it is the 275 bucks you pulled from nowhere added up over 20 years, plus interest. Take out your 1,000 dollar basis, 9,000 dollars. Ok, so by your account, Solar is ahead by several thousand dollars.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You'll have the profits from the south roof paying for the north one"

If your solar tiles/panels/cells are pricey or poorly designed for that environment perhaps. But a lot of modern solar cells can soak up a decent amount of power from indirect light. As long as you're not installing them in an area perpetually obscured from a decent amount of sunlight they'll eventually pay for themselves just not as quickly as those facing the sun. The name of the game here is going to be cost, can the solar roof panels be manufactured and installed somewhat close to the cost of a new roof (say the cost of a new roof + about half of the cost of a stand alone solar install) and still generate roughly the same amount of power. If so it would make a lot of sense.

Re:Solar bubble?

[rch7]

If you have large AC needs, first thing you need to do is to do duct leak pressure test and seal it completely.
Second, but only after the first is done, is to add lots and lots insulation to on ductwork and to attic.
Then you may replace windows to energy efficient ones if you windows are not adequate.
Then you can think about upgrading your AC or heat pump, but only after the above is done.
If you live in humid climate like Florida, proper AC sizing is critical, as only AC working most of the time can remove humidity efficiently. Double-sized AC that "rule of the thumb" HVAC people put in to protect themselves from "not cool enough" calls in summer is not good idea for you as a customer - they overload smaller ducts and you need to keep temperature way lower than needed to reduce humidity. You need to do Manual J calculation on by yourself with actual construction data - there is one site online that still allows it for free. You better get variable speed blower and at least 2 speed compressor for the same reason.
Then you may replace bulbs to LEDs if you didn't done so yet.
Then you may check for energy efficient appliances if you have some old ones.

And at the VERY END OF THE LIST, once you have reduced you energy consumption by half and at FRACTION of the solar energy cost and know your new reduced consumption numbers, you may think about PV system. That is if you are sure net metering is not going away for you personally and insurance company or proper tax appraiser will not slap extra fees on you for it, and your roof under the system will not need replacement for 20-30 years.

Re:Solar bubble?

[rch7]

Panel cost may be smaller part of the whole system cost. There is mounting hardware, inverters, labor, engineering and so on. Cheaper per W panel doesn't necessary mean cheaper per W system as you may need more hardware, labor, optimizers/miniinverters with less powerful panels.

Re:Solar bubble?

[rch7]

I don't know your location, but $40,000 for ## kW system that generates 18,000 kWh/year sounds waaaay too much. Either you are in North, or need to look for better contractors, or wait until installation cost in your location will come to more sensible, just like it did in Australia. I don't know if netmetering and per kWh only residential rates (aka "free backup" from grid) will survive until then though.

Re:Solar bubble?

[jjn1056]

No matter what I do, even if I DIY I end up with like 10 years payoff. If it was 5 years I;d do it tomorrow!

Re:Solar bubble?

[MetricT]

Plus, I haven't read about the US government spending a few trillion dollars to invade a foreign country to secure their supply of sunlight. I'd rather waste some money on solar than a fark-ton on oil.

Re:Solar bubble?

[thinkwaitfast]

Well, panel cost used to be the vast majority of the cost by about 100 times. Currently inverters are about $0.50/watt and mounting is ~$0.10/watt. Inverter prices can fall by a substantial amount. My $2k inverter has about $400 of components in it.

Re:Solar bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

40-50k to put in a solar system?! wtf, out here in belgium it's about 8k currently
(granted dollars vs euros. so not quite apples vs apples comparison)

and you're using 1500kWh per month?! THAT'S INSANE! That's double my *yearly* use (though I don't work from home and am single)

Dang it!

[tsstahl]

Bass turd had to wait. I just replaced my roof, half of which faces due south.

Seriously, it would be a great option if the price were comparable to, or within 30% of a regular asphalt shingle new roof.

Solar city is moot

[wcrowe]

Wake me when they're available in my city. zzzzZZZZ

Not yet!

[MachineShedFred]

Tesla has made an offer to purchase - the purchase has not been completed yet, and SolarCity is in a competitive offer phase where they can take other offers.

I wonder if it will be something like this?:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.solarbuildingtech.com/Home_Solar_PV_%20Remodeling/Home_Roof_Remodeling_to_Solar_PV_Roof/Stackable_Solar_Panels_Roof_Remodeling_01.jpg

Re:Somebody quote that "reasons why not" list at h

[tomhath]

Sure, so long as they're subsidized enough they can be installed. That doesn't mean they're a good idea.

watch your house engulfed in flames

[Anonymous Coward]

....and then watch your house burst into flames.... this is from the guy who keeps making cars that burst into flames fyi.... if he choose to go with his standard lithium batteries which are shown to be fire hazards and then simply combines that with houses that are already basically giant piles of cellulose-based fuel.... well you get the idea!

Sounds great

[nycsubway]

I'm all for this product. We need to replace our roof anyway. If the cost of the solar panel roofing is comparable to the cost of an asphalt roof, then its great. The only extra cost would probably be the battery and connections to the electric panel. hopefully those wouldn't be too high and would be offset by some sort of tax break.

pigeons

[holophrastic]

my neighbour has a solar roof. He also has a dozen pigeons living under it. welcome to biohazards 101.

Re:Somebody quote that "reasons why not" list at h

[thinkwaitfast]

thousand regulatory bodies will attempt to outlaw it in some way,

This. Mostly to guaranty jobs to approved companies.

Well, as an owner of a 30 year old roof....

[johnsmithperson123]

What's the price tag?

Major Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge, major issue with this solar cell roof notion ... they move. Wood framed houses, very deliberately, flex quite a bit. Asphalt shingles move with the roof. Even metal framed buildings (pole barns) move quite a bit in the wind and with thermal expansion. That's why metal roofing and siding have those little rubber washers on the screws. It's not an intractable problem, but it's a huge problem if you haven't thought it through. That's why residential metal roofs haven't been worth a shit until the last 5 years.

Re:Major Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's why residential metal roofs haven't been worth a shit until the last 5 years."

Um, you might not want to drive through southern Michigan if you want to keep your little fantasy. Metal roofs have been around for a LONG time, there are farm houses around me that have had their original metal roofs since the 50s. The issue with metal roofs in the past was unscrupulous installers/manufactures using cheap/thin metal and falling petroleum prices that made asphalt roofs more economical. My family has a couple barns with pretty nice looking metal roofs that were built in the 40s. As far as solar roofs, it shouldn't be too difficult to manufacturer them with expansion joints on each side. This is already done with many roofing materials.

Solar shingles didn't work for Dow

[scatbomb]

Dow made solar shingles until July of this year. They stopped because of low demand. Traditional rack-mounted solar offers better W/$. We'll see how the Elon Musk hype affects things though.

Re:Solar shingles didn't work for Dow

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dow solar shingles sucked. The Tesla product will probably be more like this. The European integrated roof looks quite solid, and it shouldn't be too difficult to install. Integrated solar roofs are used around the world.

Re:Solar shingles didn't work for Dow

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Elon could replace the roof, trunk, and hood surfaces of his cars with solar cells tied to an automatic air conditioner/heater system as well as trickle charging. Put them under plexiglass or similar material so you can wash off dirt or brush off snow.

my roof

[irrational_design]

I'm interested in this. The main reason I haven't looked at installing solar panels (other than the fact that it is cloudy 9 months out of the year where I live) is that my roof is about 5 years from needing to be replaced.

Most 21st century roofs can handle

[WillAffleckUW]

Almost all modern cities have zoning codes, mostly for quakes and other reasons, which mean all roofs and circuitry can handle the addition of solar panels.

So if you have a house built since 1999, you can probably do this.

On a related issue, it appears the founders of Solar City have decided to forego their salaries this year.

FBI should sell solar panels alright, but not here

[Anonymous Coward]

You total fucking douche bags. Get this shit off /.

Re:Somebody quote that "reasons why not" list at h

[Anonymous Coward]

But do they really need subsidies? I just bought a 100w panel for a project, It was about $125. Assuming a capacitance factor of 25% that comes out to 876 kwh per year which at $0.13 would come to $113 in generated electricity over the first year in a panel that will probably last 20 or more years. The major issues at the moment appear to be installation costs, which for some reason seem exorbitantly high (installation difficulty? Fraud? Code requirements). If the installation process could be streamlined and replace a preexisting home feature (asphalt/metal roof) that should go a long way towards reducing the overall costs.

solar subsidies are bad

[Thud457]

If too many people install solar roofs because the subsidies make them economically attractive, pretty soon we'll have solar dimming due to over-harvesting.
Then we'll all have to go on emergency Daylight Savings Time, even Arizona, to avoid decreased farm output and the attendant mass starvation.

It is much more responsible to incentivize people to burn old, unused dinosaurs for warmth, seeing as they're a constantly replenished, renewable resource.

Re:solar subsidies are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

If too many people install solar roofs because the subsidies make them economically attractive, pretty soon we'll have solar dimming due to over-harvesting.
Then we'll all have to go on emergency Daylight Savings Time, even Arizona, to avoid decreased farm output and the attendant mass starvation.
 

No, no, what we'll need to do is stop turning the sun off at night.

Just In Time ...

[Anonymous Coward]

for Chapter 10 Bankruptcy proceedings and FTC and FBI criminal fraud investigations.

Clever Girl.

Fuck the little people

[Anonymous Coward]

See ... people who pay rent can't do this. They're the ones paying for your solar panels and Musk's hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.

Net metering is stealing from renters. No. Stop. You're full of shit, of the shill variety. Net metering is stealing from renters.