Dow's POWERHOUSE solar shingles get along with non-solar siblings, your HOA
By Darren Murph 
posted October 8th 2009 10:04AM
posted October 8th 2009 10:04AM
[Via Jetson Green]
posted October 8th 2009 10:04AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I want solar shingles!
And I lust for sholar singles.
Yeah, when I move into a house (as opposed to the townhouse I'm in now) one of the first things I'm going to invest in is a solar power setup of some type - this would be awesome. The amount saved on electricity would pay for the costs in time, and it would do my part in the environment helping thingamabob.
I'm cookin' on sunshine, woh-oh
I'm computin' on sunshine, woh-oh
I'm heatin' washin' dryin' ironin' toastin' tv-watchin' on sunshine, woh-oh
And don't it feel good?
Hey, all right now
And don't it feel good?
Hey, yeaaaahhhhh
I see what you did there.
well done, but now I've got that damn song stuck in my head. :(
This got it out for me....
Ryan started the fire
It just started burning,
Hey the temp's still learning
Ryan started the fire
But he didn't hide it
Because Dwight did find it
As if Glee didn't already get that song stuck in my head, you go ahead and glue it back on further!
On another note, I first read this article as : "Dow's POWERHOUSE solar shingles get along with non-solar siblings, you HO"
Thought I was being insulted for my lack of solar usage. Now I just feel silly.
A lot of houses in Germany have solar panels on their roofs...not just stadiums
2011 is right around the time we will be re-doing our roof. I'll have to look into these or alternatives like these.
What's with this comment "and you know, considering the company's for-profit standing"? As opposed to all those highly successful non-profit solar manufacturers?
The profit motive of corporations like Dow encourage innovation (like solar shingles), and should promote competition driving down the high price of solar solutions. Right now, without various massive federal and state government subsidies. You should be ecstatic that Fortune 100 companies like Dow are investing in green technology, and not make snippy comments about 'profits'.
Engadget, being part of a non-profit, makes its ad space affordable so that even little Jimmy down the street can get a rotation of locally targeted banner ads for his lemonade stand and virus removal service. If Engadget had a for-profit standing, all we would get would be Verizon and Duracell ads.
You read that in an entirely different tone then I did. For me, it was a simple "understandably so" rather then a "how dare they" tone. Given the price of solar panels and the company's need to make a profit, it would be understandable for the cost to be greater then what the average person might consider affordable.
It amazes me how Economics 101 (or even basic high school econ) seems to be beyond so many people (@Chris, obviously included). I could drone on about the obvious benefits to the cost of these types of products that both private sector competition and opening up to mass market, high-volume production and consumption, but then I'd probably get flamed for being a believer in free-market capitalism, which is so out of vogue these days. Obviously, making a profit is evil and all companies should be forced to be non-profit for the good of society. Sorry. I forget myself sometimes.
Chris is absolutely right, and the rest of you need to take some reading comprehension classes.
@Scrap, the tone may or may not have been snide (reading comprehension has nothing to do with intuiting a writer's emotional cues). That is immaterial. It isn't an attack on Darren. It is an attack on the seemingly pervasive notion that a profit motive (and competition as they are inextricably tied) is inherently evil, when in fact, it is the reason that prices DO go down and become generally affordable.
Yes, costs are high currently and perhaps putting "affordable" in quotes and being skeptical as to their ability to make them affordable might even be justified. But stating the company's for-profit status as a reason for skepticism is ridiculous. The same issues would apply to a non-profit. They have to break even or reinvest all profits--they don't lose money hand over foot by subsidizing products and services below cost or they wouldn't exist. They are also notoriously inefficient, largely because they lack the profit motive and real competition. Only government could conceivably subsidize the cost of these things by redistributing the costs to others or delaying payment for the actual costs (redistributing it to our children), and of course that would do nothing to actually optimize production costs or spur further innovation.
Perhaps it was just poor choice of words. Perhaps he meant to say "and you know, their inability to subsidize them so much that they go bankrupt." That makes sense. Otherwise, it is either a fundamental misunderstanding of or a veiled attack on free-market capitalism.
I don't understand that line of reasoning at all. If you look in history, a lot of innovation was not done in the name of accumulation of money... a lot of it was to achieve much more direct brutality, and some of it was directly funded by the government to achieve other aims like scientific research, such as NASA, the technical prowess of the WWII Germany, the reasearch performed by DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. Sure, some items come out from corporate greed, but not as much as some of you think / claim.
All I'm getting at is that a profit motive is not a requirement, as much as you might want it to be. Others have had other agendas and still managed to be incredibly creative and innovative. In capitalist societies, the financial incentive often plays a dominant role.
Maybe if we all admitted that money results in Power and almost all innovation is aimed at acquiring ungodly amounts of power, I might agree. Much of it does have that aim.
I most certainly didn't even imply that innovation couldn't occur outside of the private sector. There are unquestionably some types of projects that require public sector support in order to succeed. Usually this is because the costs are enormous and/or the results are either public goods (military power is a public good, by the way) or the profit horizon is very distant. And there are some cases where research that occurs unfettered by a need to produce profitable results is a very good thing. Hell, as an academic, my research is publicly funded (though as with most academic research, it is most often worthless...).
However, the amount of innovation that happens in the public sector is insanely minuscule (in quantity/frequency--not necessarily in size/importance) compared to that which occurs in the private sector. The need to compete and the desire for money and power drives individuals and companies to create competitive advantage either through innovative products/services, through innovative ways of achieving efficiency, or through innovative ways of marketing and delivering products/services. Very large innovations are much rarer here (as they are in general) because of the need to achieve results in a timely fashion, but they can happen here, as well.
My point is not that innovation can't occur without free markets. My point (and the point that is undeniably factual) is that the free market is far and away the most efficient engine for innovation that we know. There are inefficiencies (individual inequities and a heavy focus on wealth achievement as THE measure of success) no doubt, but even there, when compared to the completely inefficient seeking and exercise of power in a socialist system (coercive political power, not production/consumption power), I for one choose the lesser of two evils. There is room for tweaking, but the current opportunistic push by so many to dump the system because "the recession proves free-markets to be a failure" ignores fact.
I agree with GregE117
I agree with Chris Dunning
"Dow claims that "affordability" will be a feature when they become widely available in 2011, but we're understandably skeptical of such a claim given just how pricey solar roofs currently are (and you know, considering the company's for-profit standing)."
So you can't make a change in the world without giving up all your possessions and living in a tree?
Supply and demand, maybe they'll make MORE money if the lower the price.
You socialist pigs make me sick >_
Talk about making a leap, chill there killer, take a breath, everything will be alright.
People that label everything "socialist", make me sick.
mmmm.... I love the pig. Especially when it is bacon!
Of course you don't have to give up your earthly possessions and live in if a tree if you want change in the world. Unless you're Al Gore. He's to be roundly criticized and scoffed at for being successful.
@chadow, no not everything is socialist. But the concept that only "altruistic," non-profit organizations (cooperatives) and the government can somehow produce affordable goods and services IS socialist. It assumes that profits are economic waste (and seeking them evil) rather than a motivating force. Knee-jerk reactions make me sick, too. But the reactions to that comment were far from knee-jerk. The comment was fundamentally against the whole concept of free-market capitalism. It is fine that he made it since, well, with free markets come free speech. Just don't expect idiotic notions that have been proven outright wrong MANY times even in recent history to go unchallenged.
Paul, you had a nice well thought reply there. It still doesn't change that the word and its recent upsurge in use is rampant and usually used completely incorrectly. Even in his post.
There is an alarming rise in propagandist speech coming from both sides. I agree, there is far too much blind and incorrect labeling. But "profit" has become as evil a word to stupid liberals as "Socialist" is to stupid conservatives. "Profit" has been equated to "greed," a notion that is both incorrect and dangerous to our society. I am a fiscal conservative and a Republican and the way my party is trying to battle bad policy through simple, near-animal fear tactics (and in some cases, outright lies) makes my stomach turn. But I do oppose most liberal policies, and the reality is that most people don't have the interest or attention span to listen to reasoned arguments (instead they are persuaded through the periphery ala the Elaboration Likelihood Model), so I choose not to disown the party entirely. The Democrats are easily as bad, just on the other side, targeting a different group of uninformed and uninterested masses with tales of mass misery, horrible woes, and fear (and yes sometimes outright lies) and buzzword-filled promises for change that most often can't be fulfilled or would be disastrous if they were. I suppose it is just the way of democracies that political "leaders" must sway the masses using such tactics.
How well will they stand up to hail is what I want to know.
How well do regular shingles hold up to hail? I see your point though
In California, we don't get hail :D
...hail gets you?
Standing up to hail is usually not a good idea.
Not the first to market
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/products/three-manufacturers-of-solar-shings/
Metal roof 50 year guarantee, how long for these?
How much?
Northern climates snow on roof part of the year?
How often you gotta clean them, sucks bad enough to clean the gutters let alone scrub shingles?
Lot of q's left to answer - if viable alternative
Although sounds interesting for desert homes & sunny climates
Good questions! Dow does make some super-non-stick coatings, so I'd assume scrubbing won't be all that difficult (though come to think of it, it might make walking on the roof rather treacherous). Also, these will be flexible and likely pretty tough, so maybe no 50-year warranty, but they should be better than asphalt. As for snow, since they are already wired, it would be VERY easy to run some heating wire through these and get rid of it likety split. 'Course that would take power, but the hope would be that it would take far less than that gained by exposing them to the sun.
I want to know what the wiring looks like in the attic of that house. What do they do, drill a hole in the roof for each shingle so that the wires can have a pass through?
If so, lets not even begin to think about the wiring fiasco in the attic....crouched over in a 3 foot high crawl space...balancing on beams and sniffing insulation. And thats in the center of the attic...what happns down near the eaves?
Nitromax, they don't offer any real details about the installation, but most of the solar shingles that I have researched don't require running wires to each individual shingle, they interconnect with each other to form one big grid. It would be nice if they offered a bit more on the sustainability, installation and efficiency of their offering though.
They are bit light on details.... life span, efficiency and installation.
I have about 10 years left on my shingles so by then hopefully the cost will be a bit more reasonable.
With each passing year this option become more attractive as my power company indicated a 8% increase every year for at least the next 10 years. If they build a new power plant the rates will at least double instantly and they will also continue the 8% a year increase.
Light on details because they are still vaporware.
50% of the total cost of solar panels is installation....Removing the complicated installation of a platform automatically removes a cost to the consumer the manufacturer never saw before. However, these shingles have traditionally provided lower efficiency ratings compared to their counterparts meaning you would need more to get the same Kwh. If they make it easy to install over current roofs, then you'll be able to cut a $40,000 project down to something like $20,000-$25,000 not including tax credits.
This has been around for a long time. I don't see what's new here. I looked at putting solar shingles on my roof 5 years ago.
This whole ordeal of converting sun energy to electricity in an affordable manner is just taking waaaay too long. WTF
...tip their hats to Ma Earth while providing shelter for well-endowed homeowners...
So you have to be hung like a horse to get these?
Like any other solar, it doesn't look like a good option for folks that have trees close to their house (yet not forming a shadow path across the roof) due to limb breakage. Or baseballs.
No matter what they say, I am betting installation costs will be crazy high.
I don't know about the aesthetics trying to match regular asphalt, but I definitely welcome the lower system cost as long as the continue to improve efficiency. I think people can accept a different roof look as long as the cost to benefit ratio is low payback period is reasonable compared to life span. I don't get why they have to make them "look" like asphalt shingles... asphalt shingles are meant to "look" like slate shingles... just make them do their job good...oh yea... and keep out the rain too...
Yea, it's kinda funny how we end up building things to look like existing things in order to "fit in" better. When I was remodeling my house I looked at options for doing molded tin ceilings. Of course tin ceilings were a cheap way to make it look like you had molded plaster ceilings.
I found a local guy who did clear vacu-formed plastic panels that he painted from the underside. They were pretty reasonably priced and looked great when I was done.
They must not be very efficient, because they are really shiny.
The solar power shingles probably have a male to female pin. Allowing them to easily connect together. I don't think there will be a bunch of wires to deal with in the attic. Probably just a transformer, a hot, neutral, and ground.
Here is the catch. Each shingle will cost $10. Pretty reasonable. Solar shingle cleaner only obtainable from Dow thrown in with good measure, a shingle scrubber allowing the panels to stay nice and clean. Retail price for cleaner, and scrubber $80,000.
Sure they're affordable.....if you only want one shingle, that is.