Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elon Musk To Unveil Solar Roof With Storage, Charger Next Month (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the exciting-things-upnext dept.

Elon Musk plans to unveil Tesla and SolarCity's new solar roof product, which will come integrated with version 2.0 of the Tesla's PowerWall solar storage battery for the home, as well as a Tesla car charger, he said today. Bloomberg adds: Billionaire Elon Musk, the chairman and the largest shareholder of both Tesla and SolarCity Corp., announced his plans to unveil the new product in a message on Twitter Thursday. SolarCity's board agreed to Tesla's offer to buy the biggest U.S. rooftop solar supplier on Aug. 1. The product fits into his long-term vision of helping provide green homes that run on solar energy and use battery storage to help power systems, including charging electric cars, even after sundown. He announced in August that SolarCity is developing a "solar roof," a roofing product that incorporates solar technology without using standard photovoltaic panels.

79 comments

  1. Wot? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    "a roofing product that incorporates solar technology without using standard photovoltaic panels."

    Since I can't possibly RTFA, what technology does it use if not solar panels?

    1. Re:Wot? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's shingles that incorporate PV cells.

      So, instead of panels sitting over shingles, it's just the shingles.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:Wot? by BradyB · · Score: 1

      It says not "standard panels" so we'll have to see on the day they announce it. Probably some sort of hybrid design that the cells are embedded in to possbly like sheets that form a roof sorta like the metal roofing I've seen around.

      --

      Good is never enough, when you dream of being great!
    3. Re:Wot? by minogully · · Score: 1

      It doesn't say that it won't use "solar panels", it says that it won't use "standard" solar panels.

      We're not sure what he means by this, but he's referred to an upcoming product that was going to be a "solar roof not solar panels on a roof". I imagine this is what they're referring to.

    4. Re:Wot? by crow · · Score: 2

      Standard panels are mounted over the top of standard roofing shingles, often with a small air gap. There have been some solar shingle products in the past where special photovoltaic shingles are used instead of asphalt shingles. The problems include that they're much more expensive, much less efficient, and must more labor intensive to install. From the sound of the hype, I'm expecting a new product that overcomes all three of those shortfalls.

    5. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So for those of us without shingled roofs we can ignore this non-story extra hard? Awesome.

      PV-shingles aren't new. The traditional cells are just better/cheaper. Absent some breakthrough that has not made it into any of the literature this product will fail.
       

    6. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary is as long as the article. The article does not give any information about the tech, but I imagine solar thermal panels.

    7. Re:Wot? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, it's more for prospective installs where someone says "I can't do solar because my roof is shit, and I can't put panels over a shitty roof."

      Now, when you're replacing the shitty roof, you put these on instead. That's the idea here.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    8. Re:Wot? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Not really surprising, as Bloomberg is reporting a tweet here.

      And yes, that's incredibly stupid.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:Wot? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I imagine solar thermal panels.

      No, the system is PV, not thermal. Thermal is okay if you want hot water, but for electricity, it just doesn't work on the small scale. You need pipes, pumps, turbines, etc. Even on the large scale, electricity from thermal is not keeping up with the falling price of PV.

    10. Re:Wot? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's shingles that incorporate PV cells.

      Here is a better article with a picture of the panels.

    11. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a roofing product that incorporates solar technology without using standard photovoltaic panels."

      translation = expensive (both to install, and to replace)

      And no, I didn't RTFU, but I can guess that its the most wonderful thing ever, revolutionary, and of course wonderfully green (or is it really greener than standardized panels?).

    12. Re:Wot? by SolemnLord · · Score: 2

      Is there any particular reason these shingles are less efficient? The only reasons I can think of being less efficient are because 1. they inevitably have less area than mounted panels, and capture less power and 2. they're reliant on the angle of the roof, meaning less-than-ideal positioning. But are they actually different in any other respects?

      For what it's worth I'm basically envisioning shingles with smaller PV panels in the center of them.

    13. Re:Wot? by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      You can ignore the hell out of this. It is, after all, the American Way.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    14. Re:Wot? by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

      I had shingles. I don't recommend it. It hurts and the damage can potentially be permanent.

    15. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a roofing product that incorporates solar technology without using standard photovoltaic panels."

      Since I can't possibly RTFA, what technology does it use if not [standard photovoltaic] solar panels?

      Non-standard photovoltaic panels

    16. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want combination PV-thermal panels; photovoltaic on the top surface, water channels underneath to keep the panels cool (and thus more efficient) and preheat household water, possibly even a substantial hot-water cistern for full-home heating in the cooler months or overnight. They're available in Australia, but I haven't seen them in the US.

    17. Re:Wot? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Probably some sort of hybrid design that the cells are embedded in to possbly like sheets that form a roof sorta like the metal roofing I've seen around.

      You can buy this stuff now, but it's wicked expensive. If he were to offer a metal roofing product with a reasonably-priced PV panel attached to it, that would be fairly compelling stuff. All the wiring goes under the roof cap so unless a tree branch falls on it or something it's all very well-protected by a stamped piece of metal with few seams.

      I hope it's that simple. Maybe it's made of recycled Aluminum? That would be even cooler than steel. I fear it's made out of some kind of plastic, and I don't just mean the panel.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Wot? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      they're reliant on the angle of the roof, meaning less-than-ideal positioning.

      Very few residential solar panels are installed in a configuration other than parallel to the roof.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    19. Re: Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were demonstrating this technology back in the 1990's. There were plans to make solar panels fit over windows, act like verandahs, or be built into South facing walls.

    20. Re:Wot? by crow · · Score: 2

      No, there's no good reason for the solar shingles to use inferior PV cells, but they do. The shingle design is bad because they're much smaller than a typical panel, requiring much more wiring for a given surface area.

      I'm guessing that they'll have something that mimics a metal roof more than a shingle roof, but we'll find out soon enough.

      What would be absolutely revolutionary would be something that is self-healing, such that roofers can drive nails through it, cut holes in it, etc., and have it still work. Just roll out sheets of it over the wood, nail it down, and hook up wires at the top (running down through the attic to the side of the house). I don't think we're going to see that anytime soon.

    21. Re:Wot? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      what technology does it use if not solar panels?

      Hot air. Which is used to inflate the price of Musk's stock.

    22. Re: Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were demonstrating this technology back in the 1990's. There were plans to make solar panels fit over windows, act like verandahs, or be built into South facing walls.

      Sometimes it's not just the idea, but the technology, price and convenience have to reach convergence.

      Like tablets. For years I read comments on Slashdot saying tablets would never be useful or practical, and they weren't... until they were.

      Now commenters point to products like the Newton and say, 'tablets are nothing new, we had this technology back in the 90's'.

    23. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks pretty slick. I wonder how they scale the interconnects, what happens if one shingle goes bad, and if they have dummy panels for the north side of the roof. I'd love to have solar, but my roof is beyond shitty--It's a mobile home, so you can't do jack. Rural area and I love the location... you trade one thing for another I suppose...

    24. Re:Wot? by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      The shingle ones had to be made of a material that had roofing properties as well as PV properties. Was it thin-film PV I forget. Anywaythat material was just not as efficient at converting photons to electric current.

      Also, you face inefficiencies in conducting the current from shingle to shingle in a complex built-in wiring and connector network. Also, that's presumeably prone to failures of various kinds.

      Big panels have simpler and more efficient designs for getting the current marshalled together and going to somewhere useful.

      I'm guessing this is conventional PV panels with some kind of novel substrate included.

      But another factor is PV panels should be offset from the roof several inches to allow air cooling. The cooler the panel, the more efficient. I wonder how they handle that in the to be announced product.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    25. Re:Wot? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      We do have solar PV film being developed here at the UW, but we only have it running around 8-10 percent efficiency and we need to scale up the process so the costs are closer to traditional solar panels. They do have the advantage you mention of continuing to work even after you drive nails through them, or sustaining minor storm damage. With traditional PV solar roof panels, damage to a panel drops output dramatically, leading to replacement.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    26. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's shingles that incorporate PV cells.

      So, instead of panels sitting over shingles, it's just the shingles.

      Most Americans cannot even afford regular shingles though. They all have that tar junk on their roofs.

    27. Re:Wot? by minogully · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those panels pictured aren't a Tesla/Solar City invention. Those are solar shingles created by another company. Their image is used as speculation on what Tesla's solar roof might look like. Electric does this kind of thing a lot.

      It does not mean that Tesla's solar roof will look anything like this.

    28. Re:Wot? by minogully · · Score: 1

      *Electrek

    29. Re:Wot? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The shingles look dangerously reflective. I guess that's what self-driving cars are about...

    30. Re:Wot? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's more for prospective installs where someone says "I can't do solar because my roof is shit, and I can't put panels over a shitty roof."

      Now, when you're replacing the shitty roof, you put these on instead. That's the idea here.

      Thats a shitty idea. Why not just replace your shitty roof with one of the many very low cost options available, and put cheaper, standardized, more easily replaceable solar panel array on just the parts with good exposure?

    31. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because more options are never "shitty"? And what makes this exclude other options?

    32. Re:Wot? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the "solar shingle" roof would be cheaper than a similar-quality roof plus solar panels? I don't know if that's the case, but I can certainly imagine it being so eventually.

      As one example - imagine "solar shingles" designed with the same basic form-factor as standard pro-panel sheets - when you're putting on a new roof you just use photo-panel instead of pro-panel wherever you have good solar exposure, with wiring safely sandwiched between the panel and roof deck.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    33. Re:Wot? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I have solar panels that are not roof mounted. Saved a ton of headaches.

    34. Re:Wot? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by 'efficient'? Do you understand the meaning?

    35. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shingles look dangerously reflective. I guess that's what self-driving cars are about...

      What The Fuck???

      I know you are trolling, but dude... try harder.

    36. Re:Wot? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2
      A 2000sqft house covered in solar panels will generate 73kwh/day in 4 hours. Is efficiency that big of a concern?

      http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

    37. Re:Wot? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "So, instead of panels sitting over shingles, it's just the shingles."

      Old idea. If you do a new roof, just use normal solar panels _as_ shingles, after all you just need to add impermeable joints between them.
      Much cheaper than a couple of hundred single shingles that have to have connectors on several sides.

    38. Re: Wot? by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it is NOT shingles. Those ideas are majorly fucked. This will replace the plywood, tar paper/sheathing, AND shingle/metal/tiles. This will cut the labor costs by 2/3. In addition, it should by stronger than current roof, assuming they build it the way I heard.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    39. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "translation = expensive (both to install, and to replace)"

      Given that SolarCitys entire business model is to install & own the panels and sell you the electricity at a rate less than your utility that would be pretty self defeating. More likely they're trying to streamline installation (which is a big chunk of their cost) and get more customers.

    40. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also that you don't have a giant ugly solar panel on your roof. It's offputting to the kind of asshole that sits in their front yard all day critiquing their neighbors, which is unfortunately not a rare type of person.

    41. Re: Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like tablets. For years I read comments on Slashdot saying tablets would never be useful or practical, and they weren't... until they were.

      Weren't they just a fad?
      Do people still use them or are they just collecting dust these days?

    42. Re:Wot? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Metal roofing is relatively low cost, not as low cost as asphalt, but I can't see any solar product coming close. It would make more sense, as you say, to mix and not put high cost solar on lower exposure areas. It might be hard to make it look good.

      I think this product, if it ever really even hits the market, will be limited to high end customers kind of like the Tesla, but for certain architectural applications and not common rooftops. The unknown is what are the prep and structural requirements beneath the panels.

    43. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when you can't put these panels on the better sun facing roof surface due to zoning restrictions of "view from the street".

    44. Re: Wot? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Plywood, tar paper, economy shingles are very cheap materials and a lot of people can work on them. Which means the labor is relatively cheap. No much room for savings and price matching here.

      Suntegra is doing solar tiles for a while now. As you may expect, they are flat and dark, so it aesthetics may be satisfactory for few tile roofs only.
      http://www.suntegrasolar.com/a...

      As for the Musk - you know that guy. Most likely you will see overhyped and overpriced disruptive invention of the wheel, and the real product will be pumping and dumping another secondary share sale for another billion dollars or so.

    45. Re:Wot? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      A 2000sqft house covered in solar panels will generate 73kwh/day in 4 hours

      As long as the roof moves so that all the roof area faces the sun directly.

      In the real world, the usable area of a roof is much lower and factors such as weather, shading, etc. mean that 8% efficiency isn't going to be useful in most installations.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    46. Re:Wot? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      True. However, solar panels are already sturdy and weather proof all on their own, and get used for leaky carport and pavilion roofs, they're simply not designed to interlock in a weathertight fashion. It certainly seems possible that you could add the ability to interlock the already-weatherproof solar panels more cheaply than you could put a weatherproof roof underneath them.

      Basically you wouldn't be eliminating the cost of the panels, you'd be eliminating the cost of the roof underneath them. As for aesthetics, I imagine it would be relatively cheap to make a normal roof panel that *looked* enough like a solar panel for cosmetic purposes.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    47. Re: Wot? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      ther material is cheap. THe labor is expensive. 20/hr or more for doing that work. In the same length of time that it takes to put the plywood down on the rafters, is about the same length of time for putting down the Tesla Roof. So, no tar paper or shingles, which is money and time. And we just had our roof re-done 3 weeks ago. I forget how many sections, but, iwe have a 2 story 3000 sq feet home, so above average roof. We had 8 guys work on it. Took 1.5 days. That is the second time that we have had this done due to hail. Next time, we will install a Tesla roof which will almost certainly be strong enough to deal with the golf ball size hail that we get.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    48. Re:Wot? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      My point was that the roof underneath is so much cheaper, anything save from that aspect is irrelevant.

    49. Re: Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, people still use them. Probably not quite as much as they used to though.

    50. Re:Wot? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The *roofing* is indeed much cheaper, but don't forget the cost of labor. Even with solar the cost of installation often exceeds the cost of the panels themselves.

      Besides, if you're looking at financing a new roof + solar installation, even if it ended up shaving off only 10% it would make things that much more attractive.

      And I seem to recall that Solar City offers something like "pay nothing up front and less than your current electric bill" financing options for standard solar panels. If you could get a new roof out of the deal as well...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    51. Re:Wot? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Labor to install a traditional roof is dirt cheap. A few guys can knock out a pretty big roof in a day. Whatever Tesla is selling is going to require some underpayment or other prep as well. The labor to install the solar roof will likley be a fair amount more expensive per hour and will take a lot longer. I think if you do a regular roof and traditional solar panels, you'll come out significantly less expensive.

  2. But can we... by canuck57 · · Score: 1

    But can we hack it?

    1. Re:But can we... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Of course, then the autopilot will drive your house under a semi while you fumble around trying to find the "Apply the brakes" hack.... After the crash, the whole thing catches fire because of a loose battery connection in the garage caused by a manual assembly... Finally the firemen will stand and watch your house burn to the ground with your dead lifeless body strapped to the couch because they are afraid of getting shocked, and you generally appear dead already...

      But Tesla will claim to be able to fix it all with the next software patch which will automatically be deployed...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:But can we... by Chuq · · Score: 1

      Oh, hi Bertel Schmitt.

      --
      - Chuq
  3. In Scaling There Is Molten Stench by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    A Powerwall... you mean a grid-connected scaled up version of a Samsung battery?

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:In Scaling There Is Molten Stench by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      A Powerwall... you mean a grid-connected scaled up version of a Samsung battery?

      Yes, built right into the wooden frame of your home.

    2. Re:In Scaling There Is Molten Stench by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Except that absurd thinness is not an arbitrarily tacked on mission requirement, so unlike Samsung's batteries, is not squashed flat as a credit card, and has a proper barrier between the anode and cathode, and has better charge circuitry.

    3. Re:In Scaling There Is Molten Stench by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      A more comfortable absurd thickness then. Well, okay.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    4. Re: In Scaling There Is Molten Stench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      powerwall 1.0 is literally just 18650's in a box.

      no charger or inverter included. its not a real product like.that.

    5. Re:In Scaling There Is Molten Stench by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      And has an energy density that will burn through a garage fire rated wall in probably a minute or less...

    6. Re:In Scaling There Is Molten Stench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the batteries will be made by Panasonic

  4. Re:Focus Diversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And more batteries to explode and catch on fire and burn families to death!

  5. Storm damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Storm damage repair just got a lot more expensive.

    1. Re:Storm damage by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Who said your insurance excess is going to go up? It won't make a dent until it's widespread.

    2. Re:Storm damage by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Along with your insurance rates....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Storm damage by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Um, the battery is inside. If it gets damaged, you have far more serious problems than that.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  6. Okay, sure by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Okay, sure, but will these 'revolutionary' solar thingamabobs travel at supersonic speed in a never-to-be-built hyperloop? And can they double as a delicious desert topping or furniture polish? Cuz the suckers, errr, I mean "investors" lol are gonna have questions and you wanna get your story straight right off the bat.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  7. This will be great for Tiny Houses by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    One stop shopping!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  8. Re:Focus Diversion by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And more batteries to explode and catch on fire and burn families to death!

    No, that's your phone.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  9. Re:Wot? Aussie PV water cooled panels by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I want combination PV-thermal panels; photovoltaic on the top surface, water channels underneath to keep the panels cool (and thus more efficient) and preheat household water, possibly even a substantial hot-water cistern for full-home heating in the cooler months or overnight. They're available in Australia, but I haven't seen them in the US.

    Until recently, most of the US didn't get to 50 C in temps for weeks on end. It's likely that the SouthWest might be prime for this, but the South is still resistent to non fossil fuel solutions, out of a misguided sense of "loyalty".

    Probably by 2020?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  10. Money is tight by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

    Plainly the free charging stations are bleeding money. Selling customers their own free charging stations is a better business model.

    1. Re: Money is tight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was my understanding they were to be a loss all along.

      Put them at comfortable distances apart, but not convenient. Makes people want to try the car. Then when you have enough, sell them the convenience.

  11. Sounds great, but probably only for the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SolarCity in my area has been among the highest-cost options for solar panels. OTOH, having storage so some nominal system output can be maintained until, say 7-8PM would help greatly with the mandatory time-of-use metering applied to new solar installations. Even at peak summer, most panels stop producing useful power by 6-7 PM, but the peak rate continues until 7 or 8PM (depending on final details still being worked out). So without storage the utility will "buy" your net-metered power at low-middling rates, and "sell" you power at the highest evening rates. Definitely a place here for small-moderate storage so, say, 1/2 of your gross panel power can continue for a few hours at dusk and early evening.

    I also like that idea of the cooled panel helping with hot water. Please provide more info! Inland California does run 40+ (approaching 50 at times) on summer afternoons, and PG&E's gas rates are climbing rapidly as well as electric.

    1. Re:Sounds great, but probably only for the 1% by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      In time metered locations, you can use the battery without the solar. Buy cheaper energy, then use it at peak times, stored for your cost savings.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    2. Re: Sounds great, but probably only for the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a tesla product.

      so it's going to be more expensive than traditional choice and still make a loss for the company.

  12. Re:Focus Diversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Batteries exploding? These aren't some micro batteries pumped off of an assembly line by the millions with little to no testing like a phone or subject to the abuse that road going batteries have to deal with on a daily basis (debris, shock, heat, etc). And even cars have only encountered a handful of fires, most of those appear to have been due to outside sources (mis-wired chargers, debris on the road, crashes, etc).