Tesla homes

[Metric Mouse]

I believe that we will see an uptake on solar installations across the residential sector because of these solar-shingles. Now there are two ways (or more) ways this could play out:

3. We get even more serious and start installing huge batteries, hydro-storage, solar and wind and take the entire grid off of fossil fuels. This would require political support, tons of money and time. But it is the best solution in my opinion and can incorporate elements from my nr 1. solution. Think of residential neighbourhoods as huge grid-level solar farms, not just individual houses.

I think Germany already tried this. They still aren't close to getting away from fossil fuels, even after massive efforts and expense (not including batteries; I don't think the technology is feasible for such large-scale storage - not sure how Germany feels)  So we have an example to draw from. While there are a few hours a year the country is completely powered by renewables, the numbers just aren't that positive when looked at in year-round context.

Hopefully the technology can catch up and improve to the point where this would work though.

[mwulff]

I believe that we will see an uptake on solar installations across the residential sector because of these solar-shingles. Now there are two ways (or more) ways this could play out:

3. We get even more serious and start installing huge batteries, hydro-storage, solar and wind and take the entire grid off of fossil fuels. This would require political support, tons of money and time. But it is the best solution in my opinion and can incorporate elements from my nr 1. solution. Think of residential neighbourhoods as huge grid-level solar farms, not just individual houses.

I think Germany already tried this. They still aren't close to getting away from fossil fuels, even after massive efforts and expense (not including batteries; I don't think the technology is feasible for such large-scale storage - not sure how Germany feels)  So we have an example to draw from. While there are a few hours a year the country is completely powered by renewables, the numbers just aren't that positive when looked at in year-round context.

Hopefully the technology can catch up and improve to the point where this would work though.

Actually they are still working on it. They have had days with more than 50% of the electricity coming from PV. One of the biggest problems for Germany is the lack of a high-voltage north to south connection.

This means that green energy from northern windmills can't be shifted towards Bayern or into the Ruhrpot area where the power is needed. This forces Germany to sell that power cheaply to Holland or Denmark where there are reasonable power-connections.

I know there is an effort underway to establish new transmission lines and these will help enormously with the next phase of their green grid.

They are in the "this costs a lot of money" phase, but it's getting there.

[brooklynguy]

Posting to bump and follow.

(Tesla announced pricing and other details related to the solar roof tiles product today.)

[nereo]

(Tesla announced pricing and other details related to the solar roof tiles product today.)

Interesting.  I just plugged in some numbers and got this:

Value of energy: $36,800
Cost of roof: -$44,800
Cost of Powerwall Battery:-$7,000
Tax credit: +$14,200
Roof square footage: 1,371 sqft
Net cost over 30 years: $800

Not exactly a great choice financially, but not as horrible as I was expecting. Roughly $10k more than just putting up standard PV panels, and this way I get new snazzy looking tiles to replace the asphalt ones? (i guess?).
For this back-of-the-envelop calculation Tesla said they recommend 70% of my roof be covered in pv tiles, which appears to be the maximum.  Not sure I'd take the Powerwall Battery, though I'm uncertain how much it would influence their energy use calculations since the battery would 'ease-out' the demand.

Regardless, I hope Tesla gets several thousand new-construction homes to adopt this, if only to help bring the cost down and choices up via economy of scale.

[Chris22]

I got a benefit of $0 to $200 over 30 years, as it's unclear how to input things (do they want the square footage of the house or the roof?  Why do they want stories?  Do I include the garage?  The basement?) 

Either way, that's a huge investment (~$24k) for zero savings.  It would be interesting if you add an electric car into the mix, but even then, the only car I would replace with an electric only goes ~6k miles a year so gas is cheap too.  I'd pay, say, $10k for a Tesla roof if a conventional replacement roof was $5k (probably close to accurate for my house) but I'm not paying 5x more to save on an electric bill that rarely costs me more than $100/mo just for power (still need to pay delivery fees and taxes).

[nereo]

I got a benefit of $0 to $200 over 30 years, as it's unclear how to input things (do they want the square footage of the house or the roof?  Why do they want stories?  Do I include the garage?  The basement?) 

I wondered that a bit too... after playing around with it, it appears the calculaltor uses your total square footage and divides by the number of stories, then guesses a pitch angle of your roof to come up with some very rough estimate of the square footage of your roof.  I gues they did it that way since so few people know what their actual roof size is ( I don't, but I'm sure the estimate is way off for the house I used - which is actually my parents house since I own an apartment).  Solar gain, roof orientation is also not there.

The key numbers I get is it'll cost $30-45k for the 'roof'.  I wonder if that's to replace the whole roof or just for the solar-tiles themselves.  It did say that was the installation cost.

[Syonyk]

...and this way I get new snazzy looking tiles to replace the asphalt ones? (i guess?).

You'll almost certainly need substantial roof reinforcement to go from asphalt to these.

They're "a third lighter" than one of the heaviest roofing options out there (tile).

If your home isn't at least a million, preferably a lot more, you're not the target audience.

It helpfully informs me that my net cost over 30 years is $20k... yeah.  Somehow, I'm not interested.

[Chris22]

I got a benefit of $0 to $200 over 30 years, as it's unclear how to input things (do they want the square footage of the house or the roof?  Why do they want stories?  Do I include the garage?  The basement?) 

I wondered that a bit too... after playing around with it, it appears the calculaltor uses your total square footage and divides by the number of stories, then guesses a pitch angle of your roof to come up with some very rough estimate of the square footage of your roof.  I gues they did it that way since so few people know what their actual roof size is ( I don't, but I'm sure the estimate is way off for the house I used - which is actually my parents house since I own an apartment).  Solar gain, roof orientation is also not there.

The key numbers I get is it'll cost $30-45k for the 'roof'.  I wonder if that's to replace the whole roof or just for the solar-tiles themselves.  It did say that was the installation cost.

Guarantee they guessed wrong for the pitch angle on my house which is unusually flat for Northern Chicago, plus I have a (basically) flat roof over my garage.  I have a split level, so it's 3 levels (including a basement), but two roof sections, one is 1 story tall, the other 1.5.  I put in 1200sq ft for my roof, which is the size of the house ex-basement, but fails to account for the ~400 sq ft over the attached garage.  Including the garage, I get a $0 cost, without a $200 benefit.  Over 30 years.

[boarder42]

their analysis is poor as well b/c you must consider the cost of the money dumped in.  Solar remains to be a good choice in high sun high rate locations but a very poor choice in lower sun lower rate cases.  In the midwest its laughable how much the cost really is. 

I did some analysis on mine (i've got a big house)

122k install - assumed 30 year loan at 4% for 7k a year in payments
Assumed rebate of 29400
assumed roof replacement cost at 21k if i were to have mine replaced.

Used 50400 as an initial investment in the market
loan costs were 6984 per year for the panels.
Electric savings - assuming i save everything i use <-- highly unlikely - 1400
end of 30 years - negative 129k return compared to just spending 21k on the roof and investing the 6984 each year. 

So what do costs have to be to make this economical.  really not that much different .  at a loan cost annually of 5700 i come out about break even at -17k and i have a roof that doesnt need replacing.  this means prices would need to drop 20% <- highly likely if pricing on solar continues to drop.  the issue then is of course the federal govt getting rid of the tax credit before prices drop.

conversely if i saw my cost of electricity almost double to 2700 annually and this replaced 2700 dollars in energy annually that i was using it would end with a net of -15k

Most likely outcome is rates increase as the cost of solar drops.  The rich pay the premiums to say they have it like the Model S and in 7-10 years when my roof is at the end of its life this is almost comprable to the costs of a regular roof.

Still not economical unless rates are like they are in cali or hawaii and you have lots of sun. could become economical for the KC area if the above happens. 

[boarder42]

not to mention you'll have to have someone clean your roof tiles where the solar is or clean them yourself to keep output up.

[brooklynguy]

and i have a roof that doesnt need replacing.

Shouldn't you factor this (the perpetual savings on roof replacement costs) into the original cost-benefit analysis?

[boarder42]

and i have a roof that doesnt need replacing.

Shouldn't you factor this (the perpetual savings on roof replacement costs) into the original cost-benefit analysis?

thats why i did it over 30 years.  at the end of 30 years if you assume you need to replace the typical shingled roof it would cost 21k again  making the net 108k in the red still - and not worth it.  But you'll also have to factor in the cost to go replace all your solar cells if its even worth it in 30 years my guess is its not and it will just be a roof from there on out.  also left out was li-ion replacement batteries for the power wall.  i bet they need to be replaced every 10 years or so as well. 

As a EE who works in power transmission and distribution this stuff is really fun and cool.  And i want it ... but the costs are prohibitive right now. 

also the lifetime warranty is only as good as long as tesla is in business i'm sure ... so is your roof really free forever.  some things to think about there as well. 

a couple other things. 1 home insurance should go down not needing to insure against hail esp in the midwest.  i think its probably 200 a year max for me

2. there should be some added equity in having a forever roof.  what that is i have no idea.

[Chris22]

I'd be skeptical of these things lasting "forever".  Additionally, as solar panels become more advanced, is there a big depreciation risk?  Would it be like having an Apple Mac II that lasted "forever"?

[boarder42]

I'd be skeptical of these things lasting "forever".  Additionally, as solar panels become more advanced, is there a big depreciation risk?  Would it be like having an Apple Mac II that lasted "forever"?

i'd say yes so if it doesnt make sense mathematically now just wait til it gets there.  I'd assume tesla panels are easily replaceable but after 30 years its unlikely they will even be needed.  30 years is a long time in tech. 

but as far as depreciation - we've seen tesla's opinion on that with the cars.  "we're going to keep upgrading and advancing we wont retrofit"  someone who bought a model s in 2016 didnt get the new sensor package to make it autonomous and they arent retrofitting.  so congrats you just paid a crap ton for a car thats already outdated.  the price of pre auto drive tech teslas will plummet if/when the tech comes out to do that. plus the model 3 with autodrive capability will even futher drive down the old model S's just like we see with cell phones.

brand new model 3 with auto drive - 45k
used model S with out - i'd say its worth less than 45k and it was a 130k car last year.

solar is quite a bit different than a car but still

[sol]

That's the price curve for all rapidly evolving technologies, though.  Rotary wired home phones were a fixed minimum price for decades, now touchscreen mobile phones depreciate approximately 50% per year.  No one complains because we like it this way.

[boarder42]

That's the price curve for all rapidly evolving technologies, though.  Rotary wired home phones were a fixed minimum price for decades, now touchscreen mobile phones depreciate approximately 50% per year.  No one complains because we like it this way.

true for lower cost things. 

But as far as cars are concerned - i think tesla is going to have a problem at somepoint.  i mean shelling out 45k for a brand new car that drives it self is ok.  but why would you get the top line model anymore if you've got concerns it will be outdated in 2 years. and lose half its value.  <-- a bit extreme but still a Tesla will depreciate faster than a typical car if they continue their business model. which you would think would lead to less people buying the high in line b/c what if they come out with something better next year.  Making it a niche market.

[Bateaux]

You pay a premium to be an innovator.  It isn't always about saving money.  If I were ever to build a house and that's a big if, since I currently live so cheaply in mine.  But if I build it will be passive solar in the optimal climate and optimal location. Where I  want to.live and what I want to do.  It will power not only itself but everything I own and use.  It will be engineered as such and most certainly outlast me for decades to come.  The technology is very close, very close, but not quite ready yet.  I'm thankful for the early adopters who have paved the way with their dollars and efforts.  I will have the proven and tested equipment to bring my desires to life.  In New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado or most of the western states I'm thinking enery independence would be pretty easy.  If not grid connected, I would have stand by generation by propane or methane.   These generators are very easy to maintain.   In the hurricane zone most well to do families have them already when totally grid dependant. Multiple times due to living in coastal Louisiana I've gone weeks on gasoline  generator power.   It's a pain keeping liquid fuel generators going.  I don't think I'd invest in solar here.  I've had severe roof damage in several storms.  Home power storage, grid storage and EVs will only get better and cheaper with time.  I doubt I will ever see a time without need for fossil fuels but, I'm certain I'll see it's use peak.

[Guesl982374]

That's the price curve for all rapidly evolving technologies, though.  Rotary wired home phones were a fixed minimum price for decades, now touchscreen mobile phones depreciate approximately 50% per year.  No one complains because we like it this way.

true for lower cost things. 

But as far as cars are concerned - i think tesla is going to have a problem at somepoint.  i mean shelling out 45k for a brand new car that drives it self is ok.  but why would you get the top line model anymore if you've got concerns it will be outdated in 2 years. and lose half its value.  <-- a bit extreme but still a Tesla will depreciate faster than a typical car if they continue their business model. which you would think would lead to less people buying the high in line b/c what if they come out with something better next year.  Making it a niche market.

The people who typically buy the top-of-the-line anything, especially cars, typically don't care about the depreciation. They just want the latest and greatest at any cost. As an example, I have a great uncle (over 90 at this point) who went through 40+ new cars in a 30 year period. Not for him and his wife, just for HIMSELF. Every time he purchased a car he figured the money was spent (i.e. the car was fully depreciated). Even though it was an extremely wasteful practice, he owned a variety of successful business and just didn't care about the money, he was more concerned that he got what he wanted in the moment.

[boarder42]

That's the price curve for all rapidly evolving technologies, though.  Rotary wired home phones were a fixed minimum price for decades, now touchscreen mobile phones depreciate approximately 50% per year.  No one complains because we like it this way.

true for lower cost things. 

But as far as cars are concerned - i think tesla is going to have a problem at somepoint.  i mean shelling out 45k for a brand new car that drives it self is ok.  but why would you get the top line model anymore if you've got concerns it will be outdated in 2 years. and lose half its value.  <-- a bit extreme but still a Tesla will depreciate faster than a typical car if they continue their business model. which you would think would lead to less people buying the high in line b/c what if they come out with something better next year.  Making it a niche market.

The people who typically buy the top-of-the-line anything, especially cars, typically don't care about the depreciation. They just want the latest and greatest at any cost. As an example, I have a great uncle (over 90 at this point) who went through 40+ new cars in a 30 year period. Not for him and his wife, just for HIMSELF. Every time he purchased a car he figured the money was spent (i.e. the car was fully depreciated). Even though it was an extremely wasteful practice, he owned a variety of successful business and just didn't care about the money, he was more concerned that he got what he wanted in the moment.

i'd disagree with this on some levels.  if a rich guy is spending 160k on a car then 2 years later they come out with one that drives itself for 45k and his investment dropped that much.  rich people who buy things to buy them do also see some return when they sell them.  and rapid depreciation like that if it were to continue would lower the demand to almost nothng for those cars.  depedning on the autopilot advancements over time.  and how well the older systems are maintained.

[nereo]

That's the price curve for all rapidly evolving technologies, though.  Rotary wired home phones were a fixed minimum price for decades, now touchscreen mobile phones depreciate approximately 50% per year.  No one complains because we like it this way.

true for lower cost things. 

But as far as cars are concerned - i think tesla is going to have a problem at somepoint.  i mean shelling out 45k for a brand new car that drives it self is ok.  but why would you get the top line model anymore if you've got concerns it will be outdated in 2 years. and lose half its value.  <-- a bit extreme but still a Tesla will depreciate faster than a typical car if they continue their business model. which you would think would lead to less people buying the high in line b/c what if they come out with something better next year.  Making it a niche market.

The people who typically buy the top-of-the-line anything, especially cars, typically don't care about the depreciation. They just want the latest and greatest at any cost. As an example, I have a great uncle (over 90 at this point) who went through 40+ new cars in a 30 year period. Not for him and his wife, just for HIMSELF. Every time he purchased a car he figured the money was spent (i.e. the car was fully depreciated). Even though it was an extremely wasteful practice, he owned a variety of successful business and just didn't care about the money, he was more concerned that he got what he wanted in the moment.

i'd disagree with this on some levels.  if a rich guy is spending 160k on a car then 2 years later they come out with one that drives itself for 45k and his investment dropped that much.  rich people who buy things to buy them do also see some return when they sell them.  and rapid depreciation like that if it were to continue would lower the demand to almost nothng for those cars.  depedning on the autopilot advancements over time.  and how well the older systems are maintained.

I really don't think it's a big deal for their clients.  Simply put, the $45k model 3 is not the same as a 2016 S, regardless of its lack of self-driving ability - but ultimately most of these people couldn't care. Many are the same sorts who shelled out $8k for a 42" plasma to be on the leading edge.  They love having the latest and greatest, even if that edge can be bought for less just a few years later. "Depreciation rates" are distant concerns for the earlier adopters, and I wouldn't assume that just because new features came out later that they have become dissatistified by their purchase; the human brain is a funny thing, and it makes us value the things we've bought more than their relative worth (its a form of price-anchoring).

[sol]

but why would you get the top line model anymore if you've got concerns it will be outdated in 2 years. and lose half its value.  <-- a bit extreme

Not extreme at all.  People still line up around the block to buy the newest iPhone, knowing full well it will be outdated and 50% depreciated in two years.  And then they brag about it on social media.

[Chris22]

but why would you get the top line model anymore if you've got concerns it will be outdated in 2 years. and lose half its value.  <-- a bit extreme

Not extreme at all.  People still line up around the block to buy the newest iPhone, knowing full well it will be outdated and 50% depreciated in two years.  And then they brag about it on social media.

First, there's a massive difference between depreciation on a $100k car, $25k roof, and $800 phone.  If they all depreciate at 50% the dollar amount differences are huge.

And second, iPhones hold their value incredibly well, usually ~75% after 2 years.  My plane-Jane base iPhone 6 was worth ~$650 as a trade in on a new iPhone 7 when it came out even though the 6 was then 2 generations old.

[scottnews]

I agree most of these people won't care.  Irrational exuberance exists on all levels of spending.  The people who loose the mind and wallet over a first generation car will also loose their mind over first generation autonomy.

I'd expect the solar tiles to ramp up over time.   So much will be in its favor: economies of scale, increased competition, greater variety, their neighbors will start doing it, voting with their wallet...

[sol]

First, there's a massive difference between depreciation on a $100k car, $25k roof, and $800 phone.  If they all depreciate at 50% the dollar amount differences are huge.

And second, iPhones hold their value incredibly well, usually ~75% after 2 years.  My plane-Jane base iPhone 6 was worth ~$650 as a trade in on a new iPhone 7 when it came out even though the 6 was then 2 generations old.

I feel like you might be missing the point.  You just admitted to gleefully trading up to the new and improved model every two years, which is exactly the point I was trying to make.  Folks do that, even though it makes no economic sense, because they like having the newest coolest thing.  It will be the same with Teslas, I think.

Second, don't pretend that your trade in value is the same as the real value.  You can buy a used iphone 6 for $250 from fifty different sellers, which is less than 40% of the retail price when it was new 2.5 years ago.  Over 50% depreciated.  Your "trade in price" is just part of a marketing gimmick to keep you on contract and loyal to the brand, but I'm sure you already knew that.

[Papa bear]

I'll be more interested when you can install it yourself. Price seemed a bit steep at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fresh Bread]

Following on from concerns about hail, half way down this article is a video showing a hailstone test.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/tesla-announces-solar-roof-deliveries-with-promising-price-point/news-story/2d162ab86a74c088bf9e069475a972e7

I'm quite tempted by this for a new build but the mark up on technology in Australia is usually considerable so it will probably not be feasible. I am interested in the environmental benefits as a do-gooder so my cost benefit analysis includes a unquantified 'green' benefit. It's like a charitable donation to the world because my government is not doing the right thing.

We get very little in the way of environmental subsidies here because our economy/the government is beholden to the coal and gas producers. We don't even have subsidies on electric cars and instead have to pay an EXTRA tax because most of the very few models available fall into the 'premium' category (which is based on price). I think the car industry is also putting the brakes on electric car imports because it means less servicing $$ for them? The big exception is Telsa and they are proving VERY popular, even at prices around $100K. We are told there isn't a demand for mid-range electric cars when Tesla's fly out of the showroom - I really don't believe it. Sucks big time.  /rant

[Chris22]

First, there's a massive difference between depreciation on a $100k car, $25k roof, and $800 phone.  If they all depreciate at 50% the dollar amount differences are huge.

And second, iPhones hold their value incredibly well, usually ~75% after 2 years.  My plane-Jane base iPhone 6 was worth ~$650 as a trade in on a new iPhone 7 when it came out even though the 6 was then 2 generations old.

I feel like you might be missing the point.  You just admitted to gleefully trading up to the new and improved model every two years, which is exactly the point I was trying to make.  Folks do that, even though it makes no economic sense, because they like having the newest coolest thing.  It will be the same with Teslas, I think.

Second, don't pretend that your trade in value is the same as the real value.  You can buy a used iphone 6 for $250 from fifty different sellers, which is less than 40% of the retail price when it was new 2.5 years ago.  Over 50% depreciated.  Your "trade in price" is just part of a marketing gimmick to keep you on contract and loyal to the brand, but I'm sure you already knew that.

You can define it however you want, but my out of pocket cost to own the latest iPhone is the same $250, aside from my initial investment way back when. That's the same it would cost me to buy a two-gen-old model. For something I interact with dozens of times a day that's a no-brainer to me.

[nereo]

Following on from concerns about hail, half way down this article is a video showing a hailstone test.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/tesla-announces-solar-roof-deliveries-with-promising-price-point/news-story/2d162ab86a74c088bf9e069475a972e7

Anyone else notice that in the "hail impact test" they oriented the solar tiles 90º relative to the two other panels?  Just some basic geometry shows that the solar tile would have less surface area exposed between the two rails.

Perhaps an error - but in my eyes the test is invalid and shoudl be done again.
Here's another view:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/sciencetech/video-1462059/Test-shows-Tesla-s-Solar-Roof-tiles-handle-hit-hail.html
and on Tesla's twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/TeslaMotors/status/862394764460605440

[Optimiser]

Following on from concerns about hail, half way down this article is a video showing a hailstone test.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/tesla-announces-solar-roof-deliveries-with-promising-price-point/news-story/2d162ab86a74c088bf9e069475a972e7

Anyone else notice that in the "hail impact test" they oriented the solar tiles 90º relative to the two other panels?  Just some basic geometry shows that the solar tile would have less surface area exposed between the two rails.

Perhaps an error - but in my eyes the test is invalid and shoudl be done again.
Here's another view:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/sciencetech/video-1462059/Test-shows-Tesla-s-Solar-Roof-tiles-handle-hit-hail.html
and on Tesla's twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/TeslaMotors/status/862394764460605440

Yes, I found that very curious.

[brooklynguy]

Anyone else notice that in the "hail impact test" they oriented the solar tiles 90º relative to the two other panels?  Just some basic geometry shows that the solar tile would have less surface area exposed between the two rails.

Interesting.  I would've thought (from my layperson's perspective) that, if anything, this difference in orientation would make the Tesla tile more susceptible to breakage, not less, because the other tiles have more of their perimeter supported by the rails.

It is curious that this variable wasn't controlled.  I just googled it, and someone in the twitter feed asked:

Why is the Tesla tile horizontal and the others are vertical, also mounted differently?

to which Elon responded:

That's how the tiles sit on the roof. There is no difference in strength for the Tesla tile based on orientation (not like wood).

I don't really understand what he means by "[t]hat's how the tiles sit on the roof."

[boarder42]

Anyone else notice that in the "hail impact test" they oriented the solar tiles 90º relative to the two other panels?  Just some basic geometry shows that the solar tile would have less surface area exposed between the two rails.

Interesting.  I would've thought (from my layperson's perspective) that, if anything, this difference in orientation would make the Tesla tile more susceptible to breakage, not less, because the other tiles have more of their perimeter supported by the rails.

It is curious that this variable wasn't controlled.  I just googled it, and someone in the twitter feed asked:

Why is the Tesla tile horizontal and the others are vertical, also mounted differently?

to which Elon responded:

That's how the tiles sit on the roof. There is no difference in strength for the Tesla tile based on orientation (not like wood).

I don't really understand what he means by "[t]hat's how the tiles sit on the roof."

the tiles are supported by substructures. I assume he means this is how each tile is supported by the substructure under it. 

[nereo]

Anyone else notice that in the "hail impact test" they oriented the solar tiles 90º relative to the two other panels?  Just some basic geometry shows that the solar tile would have less surface area exposed between the two rails.

Interesting.  I would've thought (from my layperson's perspective) that, if anything, this difference in orientation would make the Tesla tile more susceptible to breakage, not less, because the other tiles have more of their perimeter supported by the rails.

It is curious that this variable wasn't controlled.  I just googled it, and someone in the twitter feed asked:

Why is the Tesla tile horizontal and the others are vertical, also mounted differently?

to which Elon responded:

That's how the tiles sit on the roof. There is no difference in strength for the Tesla tile based on orientation (not like wood).

I don't really understand what he means by "[t]hat's how the tiles sit on the roof."

the tiles are supported by substructures. I assume he means this is how each tile is supported by the substructure under it.

That's a bogus answer.  Hail falls from the sky.  So from that perspective, the direction of the hail-cannons is "up" and the tile could be rotated any which-way.  The difference is that the two rails run along the long axis for the traditional tiles and along the inner 'thirds' perpendicular to that access in the solar tile.

We'd need a better look at this 'substructure mount' to really know, but if it's not uniform for it's not apples-to-apples.  Musk should know that better than anyone.

[DarkandStormy]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4085848-tesla-solar-roof

Tesla delayed on roll out of solar roofs.

[Syonyk]

No surprise.

[aspiringnomad]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4085848-tesla-solar-roof

Tesla delayed on roll out of solar roofs.

Much ado about nothing - their initial target was "summer 2017" and it still feels like summer to me. Also, Seekingalpha articles tend to be shoddily sourced clickbait for market timers, so not the best forum for that.

[DarkandStormy]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4085848-tesla-solar-roof

Tesla delayed on roll out of solar roofs.

Much ado about nothing - their initial target was "summer 2017" and it still feels like summer to me. Also, Seekingalpha articles tend to be shoddily sourced clickbait for market timers, so not the best forum for that.

How is it clickbait when the company itself said installations would start June 2017?
https://www.tesla.com/support/solar-roof-faqs

Solar Roof installations are expected to begin in June 2017 in certain regions of the U.S.

Unless they've been secretly installing them and no one is talking about it, they missed their own stated goal.  By three weeks and counting (and that's if you use 6/30 as the "target" date).