9 ms·

Commercial Solar

124 points by lelf 7y ago

MertsA 7y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23/amazon-joins-walmart-in-saying-tesla-solar-panels-caught-fire https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23/amazon-jo... Multiple large companies have abandoned Tesla's commercial solar installations because of the fire risk they seem to present.
- jacobush 7y ago
  True but small installations should be different?
  - AndrewBissell 7y ago
    Just have a gander at #TeslaSolarIssues on Twitter, many smaller residential customers have also reported huge problems and terrible service with their solar installations.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Aren't some of these installations from quite a while ago, i.e. the Solar City days?
  - AndrewBissell 7y ago
    Yes, SolarCity, the company which was run by Elon Musk and his cousins and whose obligations were assumed by Tesla when it was acquired. The problem is not so much that the installations have problems as that Tesla is completely unwilling and unable to diagnose and fix the problems. At this point with everything that is known about how Tesla's existing solar customers have been treated, you'd have to be crazy to sign a solar lease agreement with Tesla and become dependent on their service for your electricity supply.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
      Where did it state that Tesla was completely unwilling and unable to diagnose and fix the problems? >“Tesla worked collaboratively with Amazon to root cause the event and remediate,” it said. “We also performed inspections at the other sites, which confirmed the integrity of the systems,” adding that all 11 Amazon sites are generating energy and are monitored and maintained. >Walmart and Tesla issued a joint statement late Thursday, saying they were in talks to resolve their issues. “Both companies want each and every system to operate reliably, efficiently, and safely,” they said.
      - AndrewBissell 7y ago
        The gory details are all in the legal filings. I'm really not interested in whatever meaningless press statements Tesla is putting out to cover their ass after they were depantsed by the lawsuit. "They agreed to fix everything after we sent a team of high priced lawyers after them" doesn't instill confidence.
        british_india 7y ago
        Sounds like a Tesla hater...
        dragontamer 7y ago
        Here is Walmart's legal filing: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of-the-state-of-new-york-new-york-county/walmart-inc-fka-walmart-stores-inc-v-tesla-energy-operations-inc-fka-solarcity-cor/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of... There are quite a few major quotes here that suggests gross negligence on the behalf of SolarCity (and Tesla) on this very issue. The court case isn't resolved yet, but the allegations are quite damning. It doesn't seem like Tesla is the best company to partner with, especially if an issue (ex: fire) breaks out. Again: fires and accidents happen. Especially when you deploy 200+ large scale installations like Walmart did. The problem is how poorly Walmart was treated by Tesla. After three fires, Walmart demanded all of the solar panels to be disconnected. And yet, other fires broke out. Walmart has tons of money and hired investigators to look into root causes, a typical business won't have that kind of money or time to "debug" someone else's work.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    Has management changed significantly from Solar City days? Its "reasonable" to make a mistake. The problem wasn't the fires per se, but the management of the fires. https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-project-titan-replace-bad-solar-panel-parts-2019-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-project-titan-replace-... Solar City did NOT issue a recall or a notice to their customers. So if Tesla makes another screwup, they will likely keep it secret. This is a company which operates in the shadows. If they make a mistake, they'll keep it quiet. Compared to a "typical" company who will issue a public recall notice and inform customers. Solar City was run by Musk's cousin, and is now owned by Musk himself under the Tesla company. The general management chain has not changed.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      That is not accurate. Tesla regularly issues recalls (some of which can be fixed in the field) proactively, and a "typical" company may try to keep a problem quiet or wait until forced to by safety bodies. I mean for goodness sake, look at the behavior of "typical" German carmakers with the dieselgate scandal (which continues). Against that backdrop, Tesla is a model of upright behavior. I realize that not everything Elon Musk does is rainbows and unicorns, but there's some serious animus against Tesla in the comments here that is not borne out by objective facts (although plenty of cherry picking is, of course, possible to exaggerate problems that are not uncommon across these industries).
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        I'm talking about the SolarCity case, as well as Walmart's allegations against Tesla. SolarCity knew that their solar panels were catching on fire. There was NO recall issued in the past years. Period. Another note: Walmart's dealing with SolarCity (AND Tesla, post-purchase) is horrifying. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of-the-state-of-new-york-new-york-county/walmart-inc-fka-walmart-stores-inc-v-tesla-energy-operations-inc-fka-solarcity-cor/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of... > Moreover, Tesla's wire management practices were negligent and inconsistent with prudent industry practices. Loose and hanging wires were present at multiple Walmart locations, resulting in abraded and exposed wires, decreased insulation, and a phenomenon known as arcing that substantially increases the risk of fire by causing electricity to travel through an unintended path. Tesla also failed to "ground" its systems properly, violating basic practices for the installation and operation of electrical systems in a way that increased the risk of electrical fire. ------- I don't care how cheap you make your system! The fact of the matter is, SolarCity / Tesla's reputation is in tatters because of this fire incident, and Tesla management has done NOTHING to reassure its customers that they've got the fires under control.
micheljansen 7y ago
Note that this only works if you set region to US ("Available only in California"). If you select another region, you get a completely different page.
- benj111 7y ago
  By default I'm getting a buy or subscribe to solar, with Tesla commercial solar branding and a note saying its only available in California. I am not US based. I assume that's what I'm supposed to be seeing?
  - bmj 7y ago
    I was able to switch to Residential, and that showed an option for my home state.
black6 7y ago
This is contentless. What is it--an ad for Tesla?
- dymk 7y ago
  Agreed, this is literally just a checkout page, it doesn’t describe what this is or why I’d buy it even. Why is this upvoted?
  - trickstra 7y ago
    Somebody above said: > Note that this only works if you set region to US ("Available only in California"). If you select another region, you get a completely different page.
    - dymk 7y ago
      I am in the US and it’s an entirely devoid of content page. It just tells me how much an installation would cost. What is it? Why would I use it? Is this a new Tesla offering? It’s not even a product page.
      - Robotbeat 7y ago
        User AtlasLion provided a link to an article describing the product launch here: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124625_tesla-offers-new-solar-rental-program https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124625_tesla-offers-ne...
        dymk 7y ago
        This would be a much better OP link than the one that was submitted. Thanks!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
klunger 7y ago
It says "Pay for what you generate" Do they mean "Get paid for what you generate"? Or am I missing something really fundamental here?
- AtlasLion 7y ago
  Didn't read the article, but it could be that they give you a free solar installation, hence becoming your energy provider.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SamBam 7y ago
  It's confusing on this sparse page, but no, you do pay for what you generate. It's a version of a rent-your-roof system. If you choose to "subscribe," you are committing to paying Tesla 10-13¢ for every kWh you generate. You are then (if you're in a state with net metering) selling it to the state for a profit. In CA, the average cost of electricity is apparently about 16¢/kWh. So you're making a profit of 3-6¢/kWh. The incentive to you is that it's free to install, and has no commitment apart from a fee of $1500 if you want to remove the system. The incentive to Tesla is that they are selling electricity to the state for full price, minus 3-6¢/kWh to you for renting your roof.
  - safog 7y ago
    I was trying to run a similar arbitrage operation when the Tesla powerwall was first released but the breakeven was ridiculously long. Mine was to charge the powerwall when electricity was cheap on the grid and sell during peak. I found that a lot of the grids don't really support this kind of arbitrage at all and with the ones that do, the profit margin is so thin that it's basically not worth it. As you say, Tesla is reframing the argument from renting your roof --> you selling clean electricity to the grid to make it more palatable but I don't see a problem with that.
  - Already__Taken 7y ago
    Are you buying into a network to buy power all the time at that rate? Or is it still when your specific solar installation is making power that you may buy it at that rate?
AtlasLion 7y ago
Relevant: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124625_tesla-offers-new-solar-rental-program https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124625_tesla-offers-ne...
_edo 7y ago
This is the sort of thing I've come to expect from Elon Musk, the plan that once you see it you think "oh...yeah. Of course." Tacking the removal fees to the end of contract is a little iffy to me, but overall, what. a. move. This gives consumers who want a way to get into solar a low-cost, low-risk entry point where they'll probably break even, do a little better, or at least be somewhere in that neighborhood month to month. There is a $1,500 removal fee (which could be done for private contractors for less) but that's also kind of peanuts for anybody who's looked into solar and realized the massive up-front investment. I know that's why my house doesn't have solar. For Tesla this gives them them the ability to ramp up production, have a huge testing base, and start lowering costs while raising quality. If costs get low enough and quality high enough they could push solar technology to the point that it makes sense for the average consumer to purchase off the shelf. Short of that they're getting a whole bunch of solar panels out there. Talk about a win-win, this is amazing. edit: I just woke up and kind of jumped the gun here, didn't even realize I was looking at the 'commercial solar' page.....but it's too late to delete this comment. I do think it's a really cool business model and it's also really cool that SunRun has been doing it, too.
- omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
  I believe Tesla dropped the $1,500 removal fee from residential rental installations for the time being. They charge a time and material rate for removal of their commercial rentals (section 8). https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/CI-Energy-Products-Subscription-Agreement_CA.pdf https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/CI-Energy-Products...
- chairmanwow 7y ago
  Sunrun has been doing this for a while. [1] https://www.sunrun.com/solar-plans-and-services/monthly-solar-lease https://www.sunrun.com/solar-plans-and-services/monthly-sola...
  - m463 7y ago
    Unfortunately, they don't show any numbers at all. I think that makes it a lot less compelling. What folks want to see is: my power company charges x/kwh, what is each plan per kwh?
dev_dull 7y ago
> Estimated return of 8% to 12% per year. Higher if utility prices increase The PPA kWh price is quite attractive, especially if you figure in year-over-year constant increase in places like CA (who do you think is actually paying those PG&E settlements?). What they don’t take into account is your ~$10 a month charge to be hooked into the grid.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  I think that $10/month charge is pretty small for these commercial installations (although the grid charge may be higher).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gandalfian 7y ago
Is a dollar a watt cheap for commercial sized solar? Five years ago 50kw in a field was about 75,000 dollars in the UK. I assumed prices had come down since then for commercial quantities. Isn't first solar down to 30c a watt or something for the panels?
- jartelt 7y ago
  Commercial solar is more expensive than solar in a field or utility scale solar. The lowest costs for solar you see quoted in the press will always be for large-scale utility solar installations that are ground mounted. Anytime you put the solar panels on a rooftop, the price goes up. That said, putting an installation on a commercial property with a large, flat roof allows for lower prices when compared to residential rooftop solar.
- lightedman 7y ago
  Dollar a watt is expensive for even residential solar. When I worked a design/assembly gig in solar manufacturing (just last year) we were cranking out 60-cell 300+w panels for $85 each. You could buy directly from the company, no middlemen necessary. That's just over a quarter per watt.
NewbyCoderrr 7y ago
Solar is the future! I can't wait for the panels for the roofs.
traverseda 7y ago
Here in canada it just redirects me to a pre-order for residential solar. Does somebody want to archive.is this for people outside of the US?

124 points by lelf 7y ago

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23/amazon-joins-walmart-in-saying-tesla-solar-panels-caught-fire https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23/amazon-jo... Multiple large companies have abandoned Tesla's commercial solar installations because of the fire risk they seem to present.

jacobush 7y ago
True but small installations should be different?
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  Just have a gander at #TeslaSolarIssues on Twitter, many smaller residential customers have also reported huge problems and terrible service with their solar installations.
Robotbeat 7y ago
Aren't some of these installations from quite a while ago, i.e. the Solar City days?
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  Yes, SolarCity, the company which was run by Elon Musk and his cousins and whose obligations were assumed by Tesla when it was acquired. The problem is not so much that the installations have problems as that Tesla is completely unwilling and unable to diagnose and fix the problems. At this point with everything that is known about how Tesla's existing solar customers have been treated, you'd have to be crazy to sign a solar lease agreement with Tesla and become dependent on their service for your electricity supply.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
    Where did it state that Tesla was completely unwilling and unable to diagnose and fix the problems? >“Tesla worked collaboratively with Amazon to root cause the event and remediate,” it said. “We also performed inspections at the other sites, which confirmed the integrity of the systems,” adding that all 11 Amazon sites are generating energy and are monitored and maintained. >Walmart and Tesla issued a joint statement late Thursday, saying they were in talks to resolve their issues. “Both companies want each and every system to operate reliably, efficiently, and safely,” they said.
    - AndrewBissell 7y ago
      The gory details are all in the legal filings. I'm really not interested in whatever meaningless press statements Tesla is putting out to cover their ass after they were depantsed by the lawsuit. "They agreed to fix everything after we sent a team of high priced lawyers after them" doesn't instill confidence.
      - british_india 7y ago
        Sounds like a Tesla hater...
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        Here is Walmart's legal filing: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of-the-state-of-new-york-new-york-county/walmart-inc-fka-walmart-stores-inc-v-tesla-energy-operations-inc-fka-solarcity-cor/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of... There are quite a few major quotes here that suggests gross negligence on the behalf of SolarCity (and Tesla) on this very issue. The court case isn't resolved yet, but the allegations are quite damning. It doesn't seem like Tesla is the best company to partner with, especially if an issue (ex: fire) breaks out. Again: fires and accidents happen. Especially when you deploy 200+ large scale installations like Walmart did. The problem is how poorly Walmart was treated by Tesla. After three fires, Walmart demanded all of the solar panels to be disconnected. And yet, other fires broke out. Walmart has tons of money and hired investigators to look into root causes, a typical business won't have that kind of money or time to "debug" someone else's work.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  Has management changed significantly from Solar City days? Its "reasonable" to make a mistake. The problem wasn't the fires per se, but the management of the fires. https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-project-titan-replace-bad-solar-panel-parts-2019-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-project-titan-replace-... Solar City did NOT issue a recall or a notice to their customers. So if Tesla makes another screwup, they will likely keep it secret. This is a company which operates in the shadows. If they make a mistake, they'll keep it quiet. Compared to a "typical" company who will issue a public recall notice and inform customers. Solar City was run by Musk's cousin, and is now owned by Musk himself under the Tesla company. The general management chain has not changed.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    That is not accurate. Tesla regularly issues recalls (some of which can be fixed in the field) proactively, and a "typical" company may try to keep a problem quiet or wait until forced to by safety bodies. I mean for goodness sake, look at the behavior of "typical" German carmakers with the dieselgate scandal (which continues). Against that backdrop, Tesla is a model of upright behavior. I realize that not everything Elon Musk does is rainbows and unicorns, but there's some serious animus against Tesla in the comments here that is not borne out by objective facts (although plenty of cherry picking is, of course, possible to exaggerate problems that are not uncommon across these industries).
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      I'm talking about the SolarCity case, as well as Walmart's allegations against Tesla. SolarCity knew that their solar panels were catching on fire. There was NO recall issued in the past years. Period. Another note: Walmart's dealing with SolarCity (AND Tesla, post-purchase) is horrifying. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of-the-state-of-new-york-new-york-county/walmart-inc-fka-walmart-stores-inc-v-tesla-energy-operations-inc-fka-solarcity-cor/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of... > Moreover, Tesla's wire management practices were negligent and inconsistent with prudent industry practices. Loose and hanging wires were present at multiple Walmart locations, resulting in abraded and exposed wires, decreased insulation, and a phenomenon known as arcing that substantially increases the risk of fire by causing electricity to travel through an unintended path. Tesla also failed to "ground" its systems properly, violating basic practices for the installation and operation of electrical systems in a way that increased the risk of electrical fire. ------- I don't care how cheap you make your system! The fact of the matter is, SolarCity / Tesla's reputation is in tatters because of this fire incident, and Tesla management has done NOTHING to reassure its customers that they've got the fires under control.

micheljansen 7y ago

Note that this only works if you set region to US ("Available only in California"). If you select another region, you get a completely different page.

benj111 7y ago
By default I'm getting a buy or subscribe to solar, with Tesla commercial solar branding and a note saying its only available in California. I am not US based. I assume that's what I'm supposed to be seeing?
- bmj 7y ago
  I was able to switch to Residential, and that showed an option for my home state.

black6 7y ago

This is contentless. What is it--an ad for Tesla?

dymk 7y ago
Agreed, this is literally just a checkout page, it doesn’t describe what this is or why I’d buy it even. Why is this upvoted?
- trickstra 7y ago
  Somebody above said: > Note that this only works if you set region to US ("Available only in California"). If you select another region, you get a completely different page.
  - dymk 7y ago
    I am in the US and it’s an entirely devoid of content page. It just tells me how much an installation would cost. What is it? Why would I use it? Is this a new Tesla offering? It’s not even a product page.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      User AtlasLion provided a link to an article describing the product launch here: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124625_tesla-offers-new-solar-rental-program https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124625_tesla-offers-ne...
      - dymk 7y ago
        This would be a much better OP link than the one that was submitted. Thanks!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

klunger 7y ago

It says "Pay for what you generate" Do they mean "Get paid for what you generate"? Or am I missing something really fundamental here?

AtlasLion 7y ago
Didn't read the article, but it could be that they give you a free solar installation, hence becoming your energy provider.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SamBam 7y ago
It's confusing on this sparse page, but no, you do pay for what you generate. It's a version of a rent-your-roof system. If you choose to "subscribe," you are committing to paying Tesla 10-13¢ for every kWh you generate. You are then (if you're in a state with net metering) selling it to the state for a profit. In CA, the average cost of electricity is apparently about 16¢/kWh. So you're making a profit of 3-6¢/kWh. The incentive to you is that it's free to install, and has no commitment apart from a fee of $1500 if you want to remove the system. The incentive to Tesla is that they are selling electricity to the state for full price, minus 3-6¢/kWh to you for renting your roof.
- safog 7y ago
  I was trying to run a similar arbitrage operation when the Tesla powerwall was first released but the breakeven was ridiculously long. Mine was to charge the powerwall when electricity was cheap on the grid and sell during peak. I found that a lot of the grids don't really support this kind of arbitrage at all and with the ones that do, the profit margin is so thin that it's basically not worth it. As you say, Tesla is reframing the argument from renting your roof --> you selling clean electricity to the grid to make it more palatable but I don't see a problem with that.
- Already__Taken 7y ago
  Are you buying into a network to buy power all the time at that rate? Or is it still when your specific solar installation is making power that you may buy it at that rate?

AtlasLion 7y ago

Relevant: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124625_tesla-offers-new-solar-rental-program https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124625_tesla-offers-ne...

_edo 7y ago

This is the sort of thing I've come to expect from Elon Musk, the plan that once you see it you think "oh...yeah. Of course." Tacking the removal fees to the end of contract is a little iffy to me, but overall, what. a. move. This gives consumers who want a way to get into solar a low-cost, low-risk entry point where they'll probably break even, do a little better, or at least be somewhere in that neighborhood month to month. There is a $1,500 removal fee (which could be done for private contractors for less) but that's also kind of peanuts for anybody who's looked into solar and realized the massive up-front investment. I know that's why my house doesn't have solar. For Tesla this gives them them the ability to ramp up production, have a huge testing base, and start lowering costs while raising quality. If costs get low enough and quality high enough they could push solar technology to the point that it makes sense for the average consumer to purchase off the shelf. Short of that they're getting a whole bunch of solar panels out there. Talk about a win-win, this is amazing. edit: I just woke up and kind of jumped the gun here, didn't even realize I was looking at the 'commercial solar' page.....but it's too late to delete this comment. I do think it's a really cool business model and it's also really cool that SunRun has been doing it, too.

omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
I believe Tesla dropped the $1,500 removal fee from residential rental installations for the time being. They charge a time and material rate for removal of their commercial rentals (section 8). https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/CI-Energy-Products-Subscription-Agreement_CA.pdf https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/CI-Energy-Products...
chairmanwow 7y ago
Sunrun has been doing this for a while. [1] https://www.sunrun.com/solar-plans-and-services/monthly-solar-lease https://www.sunrun.com/solar-plans-and-services/monthly-sola...
- m463 7y ago
  Unfortunately, they don't show any numbers at all. I think that makes it a lot less compelling. What folks want to see is: my power company charges x/kwh, what is each plan per kwh?

dev_dull 7y ago

> Estimated return of 8% to 12% per year. Higher if utility prices increase The PPA kWh price is quite attractive, especially if you figure in year-over-year constant increase in places like CA (who do you think is actually paying those PG&E settlements?). What they don’t take into account is your ~$10 a month charge to be hooked into the grid.

Robotbeat 7y ago
I think that $10/month charge is pretty small for these commercial installations (although the grid charge may be higher).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gandalfian 7y ago

Is a dollar a watt cheap for commercial sized solar? Five years ago 50kw in a field was about 75,000 dollars in the UK. I assumed prices had come down since then for commercial quantities. Isn't first solar down to 30c a watt or something for the panels?

jartelt 7y ago
Commercial solar is more expensive than solar in a field or utility scale solar. The lowest costs for solar you see quoted in the press will always be for large-scale utility solar installations that are ground mounted. Anytime you put the solar panels on a rooftop, the price goes up. That said, putting an installation on a commercial property with a large, flat roof allows for lower prices when compared to residential rooftop solar.
lightedman 7y ago
Dollar a watt is expensive for even residential solar. When I worked a design/assembly gig in solar manufacturing (just last year) we were cranking out 60-cell 300+w panels for $85 each. You could buy directly from the company, no middlemen necessary. That's just over a quarter per watt.

NewbyCoderrr 7y ago

Solar is the future! I can't wait for the panels for the roofs.

traverseda 7y ago

Here in canada it just redirects me to a pre-order for residential solar. Does somebody want to archive.is this for people outside of the US?