9 ms·

I don't really see the selling point, or value here. Tesla's calculator estimates $40,500 for a roof that generates half our power needs, and should provide $2

I don't really see the selling point, or value here. Tesla's calculator estimates $40,500 for a roof that generates half our power needs, and should provide $20,400 worth of energy over 30-years. Add in a PowerWall and federal tax credit, and I'm still losing $15,400 over 30-years. If I put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000. To put it in another perspective, the last estimates I got for a solar system that covered 100% of our average power needs came in at $32,000 installed, before the same $11K tax credit that Tesla includes in their calculations. So, I could pay under $20,000 for a "traditional" solar system that covered 100% of our energy bills, or $40,000 for a Tesla solar roof that covered 50% of our energy bills. That's quite literally half the value, at twice the price. If I put in a traditional solar system tomorrow, it would pay for itself in year 9. If I put in a Tesla solar roof tomorrow, I'd still be out $15K at year 30.

tzs 9y ago
> Tesla's calculator estimates $40,500 for a roof that generates half our power needs, and should provide $20,400 worth of energy over 30-years. This depends quite strongly on where you are. Your numbers are very close to the ones I get if I use my correct address, which is in the Puget Sound area of Washington State. If I keep everything the same except the address, changing that to one in Merced, California, then it says I'd get $75000 worth of energy over 30 years. PS: it looks like they try to use the address for more than just finding the location in order to estimate how much sun is available. I tried an address that I had lived at in Pasadena, California, and it did not ask me for the house size and number of floors. Instead, it did the calculation using about 6000 sq ft, which is about the size of the apartment building that is at that address. For my Seattle-area and Merced addresses, it did ask me for the house information.
- pyoung 9y ago
  They are using Google's Project Sunroof[1] to do the modeling. The tool uses satellite images of your roof to create the estimates, and accounts for orientation, shading from trees, etc... [1] https://www.google.com/get/sunroof https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
  - ianai 9y ago
    That's amazing. Just seriously amazing.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Funny enough, it was someone's side project at Google.
      - NamTaf 9y ago
        So was Maps, originally. This is why there's so many fans of the 20% project concept.
        salesguy222 9y ago
        A distributed file sharing system (later known as the Internet) was Tim Behrners Lee's side project at CERN for a while too :) He was only allowed to take his 20% project to 100% after his manager wrote up a justification XD
        _jal 9y ago
        > later known as the Internet My turn to be pedantic, I guess, but 80 and 443 are only two of many available ports. The internet is much bigger than just the web, even if lots of people never bother to look beyond their browser.
        salesguy222 9y ago
        Pedantry is fine by me when accurate and done in the spirit of learning more nuance about a subject :)
        hossbeast 9y ago
        An important clarification
        9y ago
- SystemOut 9y ago
  Your electricity is probably a lot cheaper in Washington also and I'm assuming they have local rate information to factor in. Electricity is very expensive in California especially if you use PG&E since they use a tiered rate structure that goes from .12 - .50 cents. And very little of your usage is actually in that 12 cent tier for most people. In states like that I would imagine your solar roof could potentially pay for itself.
- Hydraulix989 9y ago
  Seems off. Seattle gets 1/3rd the sunlight of California.
  - ryan-allen 9y ago
    late reply from an old thread, pics of my synths, no old ones, feel free to mail me if you wanna chat synth geek stuff (ryan at 137 dot ms) :) http://imgur.com/a/Nesri http://imgur.com/a/Nesri
pedrocr 9y ago
>If I put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000. Are you doing the math all in present dollars? Because the return is 7% after inflation but >10% before. So you'd have >500.000 in 2047 dollars. In this case it's important to do that adjustment because you're doing an investment upfront for payoffs over 30 years so the value of money adjustment is extremely important. It should only make your case stronger though if you haven't done that yet.
- Reason077 9y ago
  Energy prices, and thus savings, are certain to increase over that 30 years too. Quite likely at a rate exceeding inflation.
  - kcorbitt 9y ago
    Energy prices have been mostly flat relative to inflation for 40 years, and there's a reasonably good chance that they will start dropping appreciably (at least during peak daylight hours) as solar continues to make major inroads.
    - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
      That's true in a lot of places but not really in California, where there's a lot of customers for solar. I don't need to go into the reasons why. It's California.
      - jpatokal 9y ago
        Why so? California's climate is pretty optimal for solar generation and there's a lot of desert waiting to be covered in solar panels. Solar is not going to have a similar impact on (say) Ireland in the next 30 years.
        kristofferR 9y ago
        More solar will likely result in higher grid energy prices, since people will buy a lot less energy while the grid costs the same to maintain.
chii 9y ago
> put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000. stock market isn't a very safe investment (that is, risk is much higher than putting in a bank), you can't make a comparison against buying some equipment, which is zero risk. A closer comparison is putting the $40,000 in a bank that guarentees interest (or treasury bonds, which is also pretty much risk free like a bank) - you'd get $99,457, which is $59,457 over your initial investment.
- ivanhoe 9y ago
  Well investing in solar panels isn't either, 30 years is a lot of time for such (currently not very efficient) technology. Price of the electricity could go down significantly as current renewable or nuclear generators get improved over time, or perhaps someone will finally figure out how to do the fusion efficiently?
- throwaway18917 9y ago
  I don't think you understand how index funds work...
- skybrian 9y ago
  There is always risk. Maybe the price of electricity changes, or the laws change, so you can't recover costs? (Look at what happened in Nevada.) Maybe Tesla goes out of business or drops support for this product? Maybe they aren't as durable as planned? Also, a roof is part of a house which is a very illiquid investment, and there are a lot of other factors affecting the price of a house. But, presumably people aren't buying this just as an investment. If you're going to put a lot of money into a house anyway, maybe a fancy roof isn't so bad.
- acchow 9y ago
  > you can't make a comparison against buying some equipment, which is zero risk. Equipment isn't zero risk. It could fail and need replacement, or need dramatic repairs. Or the price of electricity could drop dramatically and your investment won't be saving you as much in electricity bills...
- 9y ago
taneq 9y ago
Wait what, their estimated payback time is 60 YEARS? This is terrible. They've gotta be just trying to snipe rich early-adopter-for-the-status types.
- stanmancan 9y ago
  And whats wrong with that? A bunch of rich early-adopter-for-the-status types will get a Telsa roof, Telsa will get better at developing the technology and the price will come down, meanwhile more people are moving to renewable energy sources to power their homes which is good for the environment. Whats the downside here?
  - Scoundreller 9y ago
    Through the tax credits, we're all paying for someone else's pet project. Since Tesla's products are expensive, it would be a regressive tax even if we all bought enough solar panels for our needs.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      The point of the tax credit is to encourage innovation. Yes, solar roofs are a bad investment NOW, but they might be a good idea in 20 years, once all these businesses have done this research on them.
      - Scoundreller 9y ago
        If solar roof companies are to get an indirect tax credit then: 1) It should be in exchange for preferred stock/bonds in the company; and/or 2) the tax credit should favour lower prices, not higher
- jaredhansen 9y ago
  > They've gotta be just trying to snipe rich early-adopter-for-the-status types. Tesla? The company that brought you the Roadster first, then the Model S and X, and only later the Model 3? I'm shocked. ;)
guiomie 9y ago
Wouldnt increasing the tag price of your home by 15k to absorb the loss when you sell compensate? Also, in 30 years, 15k will be worth less than 15k today.
- Thrymr 9y ago
  That only works if it is worth $15k to the buyer.
  - mathgeek 9y ago
    Plus you have to be in the market to sell in the next few years (plus accounting for depreciation and the like... roofs only last so long).
ceejayoz 9y ago
> Add in a PowerWall and federal tax credit, and I'm still losing $15,400 over 30-years. Which you probably sink into a second layer of asphalt shingles 15-20 years in (at least up here in upstate NY where there's plenty of rain/snow). Hopefully it's not a tear-off, as that'll cost more.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  It's always tearoff. A lay over is saving 2k and shortening the life of brand new roof. Always a bad idea. Unless maybe selling the house soon to a naive buyer.
xbmcuser 9y ago
In 30 years how many times will you have to redo your roof I think one of Tesla solar roofs points was that many houses in the US have to reshingle. Although I still don't think it might be worth it for you.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Shingle warranties are often 20-30 years.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Lots of houses over 100 years old out there. No reason to think a lot of houses today won't still be standing in 100 years.
    - hexane360 9y ago
      roofs != houses
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Houses need roofs that last. Why put a new roof on every 15-20 years if you can put one on that lasts the lifetime of the house?
        bionsuba 9y ago
        Because unless you go with a metal roof that's a pipe dream.
        celticninja 9y ago
        I live in a house built in the early 1900's with the original slate tile roof still on it and it's in decent shape.
        9y ago
Nelson69 9y ago
Isn't the selling point aesthetics? It's very clearly not for everybody, not yet, anyways. In Colorado it's against the laws for HOAs to ban solar systems, there are some tricks though because they can require certain roofs that you can't really put solar on. Certain tiles and 'presidential' grade roofing which typically cost more than normal shingles as it is. If you live in one of those types of places and want an energy system, then this is what you want. Honestly, I've not heard a lot of complaints about the aesthetics of a conventional solar system, in fact I think some people like it because it's really obvious looking; but if you have the funds and really value the look, then there is an option for you. It's probably not that different from the market for a Model S vs a Honda Accord. The S is 3+x the cost of the Accord, has fewer fueling stations, can't be serviced nearly as easily, probably is less 'practical' in a handful of other ways but there are still people that buy and drive Model S Tesla cars.
sliken 9y ago
Don't forget the tesla $40,500 includes a roof AND solar. To for a fair comparison you have to include the cost of roof and solar for the next year. Your mentioned other system for $20k that handles 100% of your need doesn't include the roof.
- webXL 9y ago
  > includes a roof AND solar ...and the cost to remove your current perfectly good roof! I think I smell a bargain!

tzs 9y ago

> Tesla's calculator estimates $40,500 for a roof that generates half our power needs, and should provide $20,400 worth of energy over 30-years. This depends quite strongly on where you are. Your numbers are very close to the ones I get if I use my correct address, which is in the Puget Sound area of Washington State. If I keep everything the same except the address, changing that to one in Merced, California, then it says I'd get $75000 worth of energy over 30 years. PS: it looks like they try to use the address for more than just finding the location in order to estimate how much sun is available. I tried an address that I had lived at in Pasadena, California, and it did not ask me for the house size and number of floors. Instead, it did the calculation using about 6000 sq ft, which is about the size of the apartment building that is at that address. For my Seattle-area and Merced addresses, it did ask me for the house information.

pyoung 9y ago
They are using Google's Project Sunroof[1] to do the modeling. The tool uses satellite images of your roof to create the estimates, and accounts for orientation, shading from trees, etc... [1] https://www.google.com/get/sunroof https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
- ianai 9y ago
  That's amazing. Just seriously amazing.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Funny enough, it was someone's side project at Google.
    - NamTaf 9y ago
      So was Maps, originally. This is why there's so many fans of the 20% project concept.
      - salesguy222 9y ago
        A distributed file sharing system (later known as the Internet) was Tim Behrners Lee's side project at CERN for a while too :) He was only allowed to take his 20% project to 100% after his manager wrote up a justification XD
        _jal 9y ago
        > later known as the Internet My turn to be pedantic, I guess, but 80 and 443 are only two of many available ports. The internet is much bigger than just the web, even if lots of people never bother to look beyond their browser.
        salesguy222 9y ago
        Pedantry is fine by me when accurate and done in the spirit of learning more nuance about a subject :)
        hossbeast 9y ago
        An important clarification
        9y ago
SystemOut 9y ago
Your electricity is probably a lot cheaper in Washington also and I'm assuming they have local rate information to factor in. Electricity is very expensive in California especially if you use PG&E since they use a tiered rate structure that goes from .12 - .50 cents. And very little of your usage is actually in that 12 cent tier for most people. In states like that I would imagine your solar roof could potentially pay for itself.
Hydraulix989 9y ago
Seems off. Seattle gets 1/3rd the sunlight of California.
- ryan-allen 9y ago
  late reply from an old thread, pics of my synths, no old ones, feel free to mail me if you wanna chat synth geek stuff (ryan at 137 dot ms) :) http://imgur.com/a/Nesri http://imgur.com/a/Nesri

pedrocr 9y ago

>If I put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000. Are you doing the math all in present dollars? Because the return is 7% after inflation but >10% before. So you'd have >500.000 in 2047 dollars. In this case it's important to do that adjustment because you're doing an investment upfront for payoffs over 30 years so the value of money adjustment is extremely important. It should only make your case stronger though if you haven't done that yet.

Reason077 9y ago
Energy prices, and thus savings, are certain to increase over that 30 years too. Quite likely at a rate exceeding inflation.
- kcorbitt 9y ago
  Energy prices have been mostly flat relative to inflation for 40 years, and there's a reasonably good chance that they will start dropping appreciably (at least during peak daylight hours) as solar continues to make major inroads.
  - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
    That's true in a lot of places but not really in California, where there's a lot of customers for solar. I don't need to go into the reasons why. It's California.
    - jpatokal 9y ago
      Why so? California's climate is pretty optimal for solar generation and there's a lot of desert waiting to be covered in solar panels. Solar is not going to have a similar impact on (say) Ireland in the next 30 years.
      - kristofferR 9y ago
        More solar will likely result in higher grid energy prices, since people will buy a lot less energy while the grid costs the same to maintain.

chii 9y ago

> put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000. stock market isn't a very safe investment (that is, risk is much higher than putting in a bank), you can't make a comparison against buying some equipment, which is zero risk. A closer comparison is putting the $40,000 in a bank that guarentees interest (or treasury bonds, which is also pretty much risk free like a bank) - you'd get $99,457, which is $59,457 over your initial investment.

ivanhoe 9y ago
Well investing in solar panels isn't either, 30 years is a lot of time for such (currently not very efficient) technology. Price of the electricity could go down significantly as current renewable or nuclear generators get improved over time, or perhaps someone will finally figure out how to do the fusion efficiently?
throwaway18917 9y ago
I don't think you understand how index funds work...
skybrian 9y ago
There is always risk. Maybe the price of electricity changes, or the laws change, so you can't recover costs? (Look at what happened in Nevada.) Maybe Tesla goes out of business or drops support for this product? Maybe they aren't as durable as planned? Also, a roof is part of a house which is a very illiquid investment, and there are a lot of other factors affecting the price of a house. But, presumably people aren't buying this just as an investment. If you're going to put a lot of money into a house anyway, maybe a fancy roof isn't so bad.
acchow 9y ago
> you can't make a comparison against buying some equipment, which is zero risk. Equipment isn't zero risk. It could fail and need replacement, or need dramatic repairs. Or the price of electricity could drop dramatically and your investment won't be saving you as much in electricity bills...
9y ago

taneq 9y ago

Wait what, their estimated payback time is 60 YEARS? This is terrible. They've gotta be just trying to snipe rich early-adopter-for-the-status types.

stanmancan 9y ago
And whats wrong with that? A bunch of rich early-adopter-for-the-status types will get a Telsa roof, Telsa will get better at developing the technology and the price will come down, meanwhile more people are moving to renewable energy sources to power their homes which is good for the environment. Whats the downside here?
- Scoundreller 9y ago
  Through the tax credits, we're all paying for someone else's pet project. Since Tesla's products are expensive, it would be a regressive tax even if we all bought enough solar panels for our needs.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    The point of the tax credit is to encourage innovation. Yes, solar roofs are a bad investment NOW, but they might be a good idea in 20 years, once all these businesses have done this research on them.
    - Scoundreller 9y ago
      If solar roof companies are to get an indirect tax credit then: 1) It should be in exchange for preferred stock/bonds in the company; and/or 2) the tax credit should favour lower prices, not higher
jaredhansen 9y ago
> They've gotta be just trying to snipe rich early-adopter-for-the-status types. Tesla? The company that brought you the Roadster first, then the Model S and X, and only later the Model 3? I'm shocked. ;)

guiomie 9y ago

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

Thrymr 9y ago
That only works if it is worth $15k to the buyer.
- mathgeek 9y ago
  Plus you have to be in the market to sell in the next few years (plus accounting for depreciation and the like... roofs only last so long).

ceejayoz 9y ago

> Add in a PowerWall and federal tax credit, and I'm still losing $15,400 over 30-years. Which you probably sink into a second layer of asphalt shingles 15-20 years in (at least up here in upstate NY where there's plenty of rain/snow). Hopefully it's not a tear-off, as that'll cost more.

brianwawok 9y ago
It's always tearoff. A lay over is saving 2k and shortening the life of brand new roof. Always a bad idea. Unless maybe selling the house soon to a naive buyer.

xbmcuser 9y ago

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

maxerickson 9y ago
Shingle warranties are often 20-30 years.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Lots of houses over 100 years old out there. No reason to think a lot of houses today won't still be standing in 100 years.
  - hexane360 9y ago
    roofs != houses
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Houses need roofs that last. Why put a new roof on every 15-20 years if you can put one on that lasts the lifetime of the house?
      - bionsuba 9y ago
        Because unless you go with a metal roof that's a pipe dream.
        celticninja 9y ago
        I live in a house built in the early 1900's with the original slate tile roof still on it and it's in decent shape.
        9y ago

Nelson69 9y ago

Isn't the selling point aesthetics? It's very clearly not for everybody, not yet, anyways. In Colorado it's against the laws for HOAs to ban solar systems, there are some tricks though because they can require certain roofs that you can't really put solar on. Certain tiles and 'presidential' grade roofing which typically cost more than normal shingles as it is. If you live in one of those types of places and want an energy system, then this is what you want. Honestly, I've not heard a lot of complaints about the aesthetics of a conventional solar system, in fact I think some people like it because it's really obvious looking; but if you have the funds and really value the look, then there is an option for you. It's probably not that different from the market for a Model S vs a Honda Accord. The S is 3+x the cost of the Accord, has fewer fueling stations, can't be serviced nearly as easily, probably is less 'practical' in a handful of other ways but there are still people that buy and drive Model S Tesla cars.

sliken 9y ago

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

webXL 9y ago
> includes a roof AND solar ...and the cost to remove your current perfectly good roof! I think I smell a bargain!