Solar shingles cheaper and more durable than a regular roof?
- Thread starter EatenByLimestone
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
drz1050
Minister of Fire
I say nope. Musk didn't miraculously reduce the price by 1/2 or more compared to a mere 3 weeks ago.
He simply left out all of the previously stated qualifiers: compared to the cost of a roof of a type that shall remain unstated plus the cost of electricity at a rate that shall remain unstated for a time period that shall remain unstated. Since he emphasized the tiles that last a long time, his economic analysis could very easily be based on simple cash flow over time periods that are absurd from any sort of realistic net present value perspective.
I expect that for a high end home paying southern California electric rates (especially since high end homes usually go well into tier 3 usage pricing), he's got a very appealing product. For the average homeowner, the picture is a lot murkier. It's not out of the question that it could turn out cost effective, but ordinary aluminum-framed solar modules are really cheap to build.
Solar cell production cost alone works out to $7-10 per square foot of cell, before even building it up into a module or integrating it into a fancy tempered tile. I'm guessing a finished solar tile product would be $15-20 per square foot, not counting installation. I'm seeing estimates for high end slate tiles for $1000 a square, or $10/square foot of coverage, or synthetic slate look-alikes for 1/4 that price.
He simply left out all of the previously stated qualifiers: compared to the cost of a roof of a type that shall remain unstated plus the cost of electricity at a rate that shall remain unstated for a time period that shall remain unstated. Since he emphasized the tiles that last a long time, his economic analysis could very easily be based on simple cash flow over time periods that are absurd from any sort of realistic net present value perspective.
I expect that for a high end home paying southern California electric rates (especially since high end homes usually go well into tier 3 usage pricing), he's got a very appealing product. For the average homeowner, the picture is a lot murkier. It's not out of the question that it could turn out cost effective, but ordinary aluminum-framed solar modules are really cheap to build.
Solar cell production cost alone works out to $7-10 per square foot of cell, before even building it up into a module or integrating it into a fancy tempered tile. I'm guessing a finished solar tile product would be $15-20 per square foot, not counting installation. I'm seeing estimates for high end slate tiles for $1000 a square, or $10/square foot of coverage, or synthetic slate look-alikes for 1/4 that price.
I don't think he's using the price of today. I believe he's using a projection of what he expects the cost to be in, say, 5 years. That said, he does say that he didn't factor in the value of electricity into the comparison of costs. I took the article to say the product weighs less than something (clay tiles or slate?), is more durable, and costs less. By the way, it also produces electricity.
Now, that longevity could be a reason it costs "less", but when compared to a roofing system that will last a couple hundred years, is that a selling point?
Now, that longevity could be a reason it costs "less", but when compared to a roofing system that will last a couple hundred years, is that a selling point?
Yes, that was my thought. Cheaper than slate or tile, but the devil is probably in the details.
- Status
