I think it's interesting looking at it from the other end - as a homeowner, I can tell you that roofing is an expensive proposition.
If this can be competitive with traditional roofing and have a longer life expectancy, I'd buy in a heartbeat.
It has the potential to displace thousands of tons of asphalt shingles per year with the equivalent of recyclable glass, which is pretty fantastic. The embodied energy of production for the tar hydrocarbons in current roofing materials are pretty nasty, and they don't just disappear when they wear out.
In the launch presentation they were saying that their pricing is competitive with standard roofing, plus the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the roof. And they're also talking about the increased durability, so that's a lot of electricity bills. the initial installation is definitely not going to be under $25k
From my experience, the price of installing solar on 1/4th of your roof is more expensive than installing a full, brand new roof. Beyond that, not all parts of the roof are created equal for solar - some will generated much less energy than others. E.g. a neighbor's tree blocks a fair portion of our roof from the sun.
You can already get a $0 electricity bill without having full roof solar.
I can't see it being anything but a waste of money for the practical consumer.
It's already obvious this isn't targeted at your garden variety practical consumer. As the article points out, the demo'd roofing styles are all luxury roofing.
Maybe they'll have solar and non-solar shingles that look the same, so you can have the solar shingles facing South, but the whole roof looks the same.
Don't forget that rooftop solar panels reduce HVAC cooling needs in summer, and I would bet they also slash blackbody radiation, reducing the greenhouse problem. Absorbing the light ought to be as good as reflecting it.
a 93-square-metre (1,000 sq ft) white roof will offset 10 tons of carbon dioxide over its 20-year lifetime.
Except, unless you are powering a laser pointed offworld, most of that energy is going to end up in your local environment as heat. Or, you meant just your house's greenhouse problem? Running a heat pump or AC would do that.
Yes, but the energy that gets converted into heat is replacing energy that would have come from some other source (fossil or not) that now doesn't have to be consumed.
I'm not enough of an environmental physicist type to know for sure, but I think warm air (produced by various electronics) is preferable to a hot roof emitting blackbody radiation (which radiates at the wavelength that greenhouse gasses absorb).
Roof replacement is quite a dirty business, in more than one sense of the term, and there are regions where whole roofs are replaced by the majority of insured homeowners every 10 years or less. Any dent that can be made in this problem is a good thing, and this looks to be quite a large dent indeed.
> roofs are replaced by the majority of insured homeowners every 10 years or less
Well I was going to be astonished, but Google and Wikipedia seem to tell me US roofs are a consumable and usually asphalt!
Most UK roofs are tile, slate if older, and asphalt shingles reserved for sheds, garden structures etc. Tile lifespan should be 60+ years.
As much as I like the improved aesthetics I don't see the tiles making much dent in the UK apart from new builds. For exising build the UK approach to solar has been to slap panels on a frame over the existing roof. Sadly there are no planning restrictions on bad taste.
I cannot fathom why anybody would build a new house and put asphalt shingles on it. Steel is far superior, and not much more expensive up-front, and likely cheaper over its lifetime. Most asphalt shingles only have a lifetime of 20-30 years, while steel will last double that easily.
Also, I grew up in the Northeast. Snow slides right off steel roofing. It sticks to shingles, especially if you have any ice build-up. Unless you have a relatively steep roof pitch, you have to get up on the roof in the winter and clear the snow off. With steel, you wait for a warmer day, and it slides on its own.
that's bananas, in Australia replacing a roof is really uncommon. much like the poster above in the UK it's usually either corrugated "tin" (actual metal varies) or Terracotta/concrete tiles.
We don't really have any of the "shingle" type stuff. The "Tuscan" glass tile from the Tesla event is the closest looks to the most common tiles here.
You normally don't replace a tile roof unless you get hit by a big hail storm. If these glass tiles hold up to hail better than tile then they would be good fit here.
Corrugated iron rusts out, but it has a pretty long lifespan.
The bigger issue is in many areas you are restricted in what roof material you can use - lots of locations limit you to tiles only.
> Most UK roofs are tile, slate if older, and asphalt shingles reserved for sheds, garden structures etc. Tile lifespan should be 60+ years.
Asphalt for the better quality sheds, corrugated iron for the lower quality sheds:-) Typical UK roof lifespan I've been quoted is around 50 years (I know because our roof is starting to need replacing and was last replaced in the 1970s).
> As much as I like the improved aesthetics I don't see the tiles making much dent in the UK
Actually there is one area in the UK where they may make an impact - conservation areas. The stricter ones prohibit solar panels on street-facing roofs, but may conceivably allow the solar tiles. Plus I suspect that those who live in conservation areas are more likely to be Tesla customers already.
Could be 50. It's mostly a working minimum for the clay deteriorating I think. Even when you see a 20s estate it's uncommon to see replacements, and half of those are rot in the timber or some such. Blocking up ventilation is a great way to cause that rot as some find the hard way. 60s and 70s houses may need earlier - quality wasn't great with some of those buildings.
Great point about conservation areas, never occured to me. The slate looking one is convincing enough for the national parks. The unique pattern printing should appeal to the most fussy NIMBY. Shame they won't last 150 yrs like slate.
They last 30 years, but you replace them every 10 years because the home insurance company demands it. In some areas, roofs older than 10 years are uninsurable.
An expensive roof would be a mistake, even if it can last 1000 years, because you will still need to replace it within 10 years.
In coastal regions of the PNW it is not uncommon to see moss and algae growth start within 3 years of a roof being installed. Replacement can be necessary within 10 years if the problem isn't dealt with.
Yep. That's where I am. Currently getting a HELOC for when the inevitable happens, planning on getting a metal roof instead of this asphalt claptrap. Figure it'll cost 3x as much but last 5x as long.
I've been contemplating the remaining lifespan of this multilayer roof that's been failing some of the carpentry on my mother's roof and wondering about going solar with the next roofing. I wonder how robust these things are for standing on and how they cut around the gas flues and plumbing ventilation pipes and what not. Maybe they deliver blank tiles with no cells on them to cut into odd shapes and what not. If the price difference is close I'd go this route easily.
It seems they'll almost have to have non-solar tiles that match. Currently, most people don't cover their entire roof with solar panels if they have sections that don't get enough sun to make panels there worth the extra cost.
If this can be competitive with traditional roofing and have a longer life expectancy, I'd buy in a heartbeat.
It has the potential to displace thousands of tons of asphalt shingles per year with the equivalent of recyclable glass, which is pretty fantastic. The embodied energy of production for the tar hydrocarbons in current roofing materials are pretty nasty, and they don't just disappear when they wear out.