Xyleco - 60 Minutes

[Southernguy]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

All energy (except nuclear?) comes from the sun. Plants are a way to collect sun energy, turn CO2 into cellulose, sugars, protein, etc.
Use plants to grow cellulose to convert to fuel is, I think, burning food on car engines. Soil used to produce trees or whichever can produce food, in one way or the other. Marginal lands can be used to grow cattle. Deserts can be recovered. Talk of Alan Savory and his holistic management system. Which is something created from André Voisin method of cattle growing in mild to cold climate. The best way to collect sun energy and apply it to transportation is wind and photovoltaic. Then turn electricity into car, buses, trains, bikes, etc. fuel. This process is well established and developing fast. And it don't collide with food production. Cellulose is, I think, gonna loose a lot of ground from stone paper as well. Oil not used to fuel cars shall go into stone paper. These are all things going into mass production however their share of markets is still small.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

Use plants to grow cellulose to convert to fuel is, I think, burning food on car engines.... The best way to collect sun energy and apply it to transportation is wind and photovoltaic. Then turn electricity into car, buses, trains, bikes, etc. fuel. This process is well established and developing fast. And it don't collide with food production. Cellulose is, I think, gonna loose a lot of ground from stone paper as well. Oil not used to fuel cars shall go into stone paper. These are all things going into mass production however their share of markets is still small.

Your first point is a pretty good one -we generally don't want to burn our food. Which is exactly the big attraction to cellulosic ethanol. We will grow the corn and rice and wheat regardless to get the seeds for food. It would be great to use the stalks and leaves for fuel, it's right in our hand at harvest time. Back when I worked in alternative fuels we talked about simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Fermentation is the easy part ,saccharification is the hard part. Xyleco seems to have a promising approach to it.

The desirability of EVs is pretty obvious long term, but the transition period would be easier with a good biofuel. The worldwide vehicle fleet is a huge sunk cost (both in terms of money and pollution during manufacture), and we should look for ways to get that durable asset out to the end of its useful life.

[FrankL]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

Your first point is a pretty good one -we generally don't want to burn our food. Which is exactly the big attraction to cellulosic ethanol. We will grow the corn and rice and wheat regardless to get the seeds for food. It would be great to use the stalks and leaves for fuel, it's right in our hand at harvest time. Back when I worked in alternative fuels we talked about simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Fermentation is the easy part ,saccharification is the hard part. Xyleco seems to have a promising approach to it.

The desirability of EVs is pretty obvious long term, but the transition period would be easier with a good biofuel. The worldwide vehicle fleet is a huge sunk cost (both in terms of money and pollution during manufacture), and we should look for ways to get that durable asset out to the end of its useful life.

aren't most parts of crops (incl. the cellulose materials) already used in the food chain? I doubt there's much material that is being discarded if not used for fuel (unless there's an effect from distortion of prices like corn subsidies).

Other food for thought:
- if we can successfully grow stuff on marginal lands, I'm sure we'll be able to grow food on it too in the not too distant future.
- growing anything consumes phosphorus; using that for fuel is in competition for food, especially since we don't have unlimited supply of phosphorus.

I'd agree with Southernguy that anything that competes with food is destined to fail for production of fuel-like substances, unless it is for production of highly value added substances that are relatively low volume, such as pharmaceuticals. Fuel? sounds like a waste to me.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

aren't most parts of crops (incl. the cellulose materials) already used in the food chain? I doubt there's much material that is being discarded if not used for fuel (unless there's an effect from distortion of prices like corn subsidies).

Other food for thought:
- if we can successfully grow stuff on marginal lands, I'm sure we'll be able to grow food on it too in the not too distant future.
- growing anything consumes phosphorus; using that for fuel is in competition for food, especially since we don't have unlimited supply of phosphorus.

I'd agree with Southernguy that anything that competes with food is destined to fail for production of fuel-like substances, unless it is for production of highly value added substances that are relatively low volume, such as pharmaceuticals. Fuel? sounds like a waste to me.

This is actually where the company gets its name. Think of corn stover. Most of it's worthless. There's a couple tons per acre. It's mainly cellulose and xylan. If you can crack it cheaply enough at commercial scales into cellulosic ethanol and xylose (wood sugar), then you've got fighting chance at monetizing an what is otherwise mostly either a byproduct or dirt cheap feed.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

Your first point is a pretty good one -we generally don't want to burn our food. Which is exactly the big attraction to cellulosic ethanol. We will grow the corn and rice and wheat regardless to get the seeds for food. It would be great to use the stalks and leaves for fuel, it's right in our hand at harvest time. Back when I worked in alternative fuels we talked about simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. Fermentation is the easy part ,saccharification is the hard part. Xyleco seems to have a promising approach to it.

The desirability of EVs is pretty obvious long term, but the transition period would be easier with a good biofuel. The worldwide vehicle fleet is a huge sunk cost (both in terms of money and pollution during manufacture), and we should look for ways to get that durable asset out to the end of its useful life.

I've said this before, but some of the biggest barriers to residential solar are simply landlords, housing stock, and lack of capital access. Believe it or not, in this debt-laden society, if you don't have equity for a HELOC or an excellent credit score, it can be difficult to get the cash to finance an installation--significantly tougher than getting a car loan. Even if you can, if your house is old, you very well may need a new roof and a bunch of electrical work first. Finally, if the house is a rental, it's probably never gonna happen. Most often renters pay the electric bill. So landlords have no incentive to invest a bunch of money to lower that bill. And tenants have no incentive to finance improvements to the landlord's property, especially if they're not long-term. So renters just get left out of all the sales and marketing, wherein lead generators actively avoid them.

I think these same barriers exist for EVs. In this case, lack of garage substitutes for no roof (or needing a new roof). The electric upgrades are still a problem. The landlord issue is still huge. Apartment blocks are mostly no-go zones. And that's all assuming you get over the price and range hurdles. When you add up all the people who don't have the credit or don't have the garage/roof, or don't have the electric wiring, or don't own a property to upgrade for this stuff, you get a majority of Americans.

Think of it like electrification at the turn of the 20th century. The billing and regulatory methods in the US were mostly solved by about 1910. By 1918, the price of electricity had bottomed out. But low prices alone didn't make electricity near-universal at the residential scale. Indeed, come 1935, only something like 15% of rural households were electrified. That year and the next, a flurry of new laws came out aiming to fix that. And ten years later, it was mostly done.

Political reality would have to shift greatly in the US to get to a point where laws like these could become viable possibilities again. But without something like that, I am all but certain that no matter how cheap these technologies get, "The Market" is not going to make them suddenly universal, unless land and carpenters and electricians and copper and wood suddenly become an order of magnitude cheaper or something. So, given all that, I think both the ICE and liquid fuel are not going anywhere anytime in the short-term. If there's a major political shift, then I'll perk my ears up. Until then, there's simply no vision for it. Mergers and buy-backs and luxury or niche items and the iPhone23s are all we're gonna get.

I mean, I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom. UK's the biggest offshore wind player now, and they ramped up quickly despite rudderless leadership. I think you'll see the northeast US ramp up quickly too. It's not super cheap, though. And even with all the ramp-up, I think the UK's up to 7GW nameplate capacity or something, which means if the capacity factor's about 40%, you're looking at maybe a quarter of the output they already get from nuclear. But it is on the rise. I just still think electric and thermal sector decarbonization is going to be simpler and cheaper than transportation decarbonization. And I think it's the space in which commercial technology is least likely to be fully transformative without serious massive public infrastructure undertakings.

[DSpencer]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

I've said this before, but some of the biggest barriers to residential solar are simply landlords, housing stock, and lack of capital access. Believe it or not, in this debt-laden society, if you don't have equity for a HELOC or an excellent credit score, it can be difficult to get the cash to finance an installation--significantly tougher than getting a car loan. Even if you can, if your house is old, you very well may need a new roof and a bunch of electrical work first. Finally, if the house is a rental, it's probably never gonna happen. Most often renters pay the electric bill. So landlords have no incentive to invest a bunch of money to lower that bill. And tenants have no incentive to finance improvements to the landlord's property, especially if they're not long-term. So renters just get left out of all the sales and marketing, wherein lead generators actively avoid them.

I think these same barriers exist for EVs. In this case, lack of garage substitutes for no roof (or needing a new roof). The electric upgrades are still a problem. The landlord issue is still huge. Apartment blocks are mostly no-go zones. And that's all assuming you get over the price and range hurdles. When you add up all the people who don't have the credit or don't have the garage/roof, or don't have the electric wiring, or don't own a property to upgrade for this stuff, you get a majority of Americans.

Think of it like electrification at the turn of the 20th century. The billing and regulatory methods in the US were mostly solved by about 1910. By 1918, the price of electricity had bottomed out. But low prices alone didn't make electricity near-universal at the residential scale. Indeed, come 1935, only something like 15% of rural households were electrified. That year and the next, a flurry of new laws came out aiming to fix that. And ten years later, it was mostly done.

Political reality would have to shift greatly in the US to get to a point where laws like these could become viable possibilities again. But without something like that, I am all but certain that no matter how cheap these technologies get, "The Market" is not going to make them suddenly universal, unless land and carpenters and electricians and copper and wood suddenly become an order of magnitude cheaper or something. So, given all that, I think both the ICE and liquid fuel are not going anywhere anytime in the short-term. If there's a major political shift, then I'll perk my ears up. Until then, there's simply no vision for it. Mergers and buy-backs and luxury or niche items and the iPhone23s are all we're gonna get.

I mean, I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom. UK's the biggest offshore wind player now, and they ramped up quickly despite rudderless leadership. I think you'll see the northeast US ramp up quickly too. It's not super cheap, though. And even with all the ramp-up, I think the UK's up to 7GW nameplate capacity or something, which means if the capacity factor's about 40%, you're looking at maybe a quarter of the output they already get from nuclear. But it is on the rise. I just still think electric and thermal sector decarbonization is going to be simpler and cheaper than transportation decarbonization. And I think it's the space in which commercial technology is least likely to be fully transformative without serious massive public infrastructure undertakings.

I've looked into solar for my house and I have the money to pay for it up front. It just doesn't make financial sense. I'm in Ohio, so obviously it's not the ideal location. If the cost were lower, then I would probably do it, but I'm not representative of the overall population. There is also the option to finance it, but that makes the economics even worse. Still, I think if the cost continues to drop there will be a point when it starts getting done on a large scale.

The main political hurdle that I see is the risk that regulations change regarding the requirement for the utility to buy excess production. The best economies of scale come from doing a relatively large installation, but at that point you are likely generating more than your usage at peak. That's fine if the meter rolls backward, but if you can't be sure that will be the case for the next couple decades it might not make sense to take the risk.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

I've looked into solar for my house and I have the money to pay for it up front. It just doesn't make financial sense. I'm in Ohio, so obviously it's not the ideal location. If the cost were lower, then I would probably do it, but I'm not representative of the overall population. There is also the option to finance it, but that makes the economics even worse. Still, I think if the cost continues to drop there will be a point when it starts getting done on a large scale.

The main political hurdle that I see is the risk that regulations change regarding the requirement for the utility to buy excess production. The best economies of scale come from doing a relatively large installation, but at that point you are likely generating more than your usage at peak. That's fine if the meter rolls backward, but if you can't be sure that will be the case for the next couple decades it might not make sense to take the risk.

There's a huge variation in state laws around this stuff. What you're talking about sounds like net metering. Other states have feed-in tariffs or power-purchase agreements. Takes a lot of the risk out, because the rate at which they buy it long term for the life of the system is set. In some states with cap and trade programs, there are renewable energy credits you can sell onto that market on top of the generation value. Long story short, I'm certain it's more risky in Ohio than Massachusetts. But even in a state where it's all but a sure thing, the barriers I refer to remain. And the extreme (and growing) variation not just in the value of state regulatory measures, but in the manner they are designed, is not going to make universal adoption any easier over the long term.

Sometimes it's nice, depending on your vantage point. States are so unique that even in a place as small and integrated as New England, installers often won't do out-of-state work. This is a big reason why Solar City failed too--they would do out-of-state work, but they wouldn't put the effort into deeply learning the unique laws and utility tariffs in each state, and so they simply wouldn't know about many incentives to even offer them to potential customers. They just hired salesmen off the street and said screw the legal and policy stuff. And people on the ground caught on quickly. After Tesla bought it out, they pulled out of most states and their sales partnership with Home Depot.

Ultimately, if you want big national companies and economies of scale with this stuff because you think that's the path to more universal adoption, you kind of do need one standard set of predictable federal rules that levels the playing field for everybody. But that does mean that the rule will probably appear reactionary and conservative from the vantage point of someone in California and radically progressive from the vantage point of someone in Texas.

Regardless, the price may ultimately drop to the point where you'd tip. But I still think the 40% of folks who are renters and the not-entirely overlapping 30% of folks without garages, and the whatever percent of folks with old homes with bad roofs or no 240v service or old knob and tube wiring or whatever are going to leave a huge portion of the potential market out in the cold. And every install that someone who does own a house and does benefit financially enjoys is partially financed by raising their electric bills. It's largely a regressive transfer in the end of the day. Wealthier people who own newer, more solid homes profit off of power production, poorer people pay higher electric rates, and the whole thing's funneled through either a regulated or publicly owned electric utility as mandated by state law.

I simply meet people all the time who think that just because the price drops means all these other barriers go away. They don't. The price of PV has dropped a lot over the past few years. $3/watt installed is more or less common now, and was unheard of not long ago. The modules have come way down in price, and generate more energy per surface area. The big old clunky single-inverters of old that had to be swapped out after a decade are gone, and the new micro-inverters are both cheaper and easier to repair. They also allow partial failure. As state regulatory agencies learn and businesses learn, even the soft costs have come down as software automation and process simplification efforts pay off. Even the mounting hardware is a bit cheaper. I mean, it's less than half what the price it was 10 years ago. Probably down by about 60%.

But I doubt the hardware's gonna get any cheaper than now. The soft costs have probably bottomed out in a lot of states too, though ymmv. There was low-hanging fruit in process design and automation there, but it's mostly gone. Doubt the actual electricians and installers labor rates are going to get any cheaper, it's pretty efficient now. The modules and inverters at this point only make up about $1 or so per watt of the cost. So even if you cut the price of those parts down by 90%, you're only lowering the overall price by about 30% or so. Realistically, the steep part of the price drop even there may not be over, but I expect it will slow. And tariffs do not help. But 20% or 30% off might be enough to entice you. Less likely to be enough to entice the guy who needs a new roof and needs to rewire his home first.

[peakishmael]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

I've looked into solar for my house and I have the money to pay for it up front. It just doesn't make financial sense.

This surprises me. I installed solar in 2008, when I considered it financially marginal. Today's rates seem like a slam dunk to me. Curious how you did your calculation. Here's mine.

I'm in the D.C. area, hardly an ideal location either. But every kilowatt of installed capacity generates roughly 1000 KWH per year, on my roof which has few trees or other obstructions but is poorly oriented (low sloping, pointing west).

At $3/installed watt, obviously a kw costs about $3000. The 30% federal tax credit means the actual cost to the homeowner is about $2100. I won't include any state incentives, or possible sale of RECs (renewable energy credits) as those vary from state to state.

Once I add in all of the surcharges (delivery charges per kwh) on my electricity bill, I am paying about $0.145 per kwh. So on my roof, every kw of installed capacity saves about $145/year.

So it is roughly a 7% return per year (145/2100), in my crummy location, with a poorly oriented roof. That all seems pretty conservative. I don't think you can get that return, guaranteed, elsewhere. Seems pretty good to me for an investment in saving the world. :-)

[jk]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

washington dc about latitude 39oN, 28kwhr/yr
boston ma about latitude 42.4oN, 23kwhr/yr

washington gets about 22% more solar energy

[peakishmael]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

washington dc about latitude 39oN, 28kwhr/yr
boston ma about latitude 42.4oN, 23kwhr/yr

washington gets about 22% more solar energy

Good state incentives in Mass, both tax incentives and SRECs. Internal rate of return estimated at over 20%. https://www.solar-estimate.org/solar.../massachusetts

Estimates for other states at https://www.solar-estimate.org/

[dcarrigg]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

washington dc about latitude 39oN, 28kwhr/yr
boston ma about latitude 42.4oN, 23kwhr/yr

washington gets about 22% more solar energy

Yeah but incentives plus MA retail rates mean the payout's probably higher. If we had a national policy on this stuff, things like physical reality might play a bigger role. But since we don't, you're better off doing it financially in Boston than Austin, regardless of sunlight. Electric rates have never been and will never be laissez faire. Lack of federal policy simply means state and local policy fills the void. Nevada basically destroyed its residential solar industry in 2015 thanks to some lobbying by BH folks, then faced a massive backlash and pulled a 180 two years later. If physical reality mattered, you'd figure Nevada'd be all in.

[DSpencer]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

I simply meet people all the time who think that just because the price drops means all these other barriers go away. They don't. The price of PV has dropped a lot over the past few years. $3/watt installed is more or less common now, and was unheard of not long ago. The modules have come way down in price, and generate more energy per surface area. The big old clunky single-inverters of old that had to be swapped out after a decade are gone, and the new micro-inverters are both cheaper and easier to repair. They also allow partial failure. As state regulatory agencies learn and businesses learn, even the soft costs have come down as software automation and process simplification efforts pay off. Even the mounting hardware is a bit cheaper. I mean, it's less than half what the price it was 10 years ago. Probably down by about 60%.

But I doubt the hardware's gonna get any cheaper than now. The soft costs have probably bottomed out in a lot of states too, though ymmv. There was low-hanging fruit in process design and automation there, but it's mostly gone. Doubt the actual electricians and installers labor rates are going to get any cheaper, it's pretty efficient now. The modules and inverters at this point only make up about $1 or so per watt of the cost. So even if you cut the price of those parts down by 90%, you're only lowering the overall price by about 30% or so. Realistically, the steep part of the price drop even there may not be over, but I expect it will slow. And tariffs do not help. But 20% or 30% off might be enough to entice you. Less likely to be enough to entice the guy who needs a new roof and needs to rewire his home first.

I get what you're saying, but wouldn't an improvement in the efficiency per square foot also reduce the labor cost on a per watt basis? I don't know what's realistic to expect in that area though.

Looking at it long term, I would be most likely to do it simultaneous with (or right after) replacing the roof. The Tesla solar roof is ideal (in theory) in many ways: You don't have to worry about replacing the roof separately because it is the roof. You don't have the look of an aftermarket bolt on product. They claim to be stronger than regular tiles. The problem is that as far as I can tell, it's not even available. Assuming it ever is available, it's expected to cost substantially more than even buying a new normal roof and installing normal solar panels. Unless the price comes down, it will probably be mostly a badge for rich people to display that they are concerned about both aesthetics and the environment.

[DSpencer]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

This surprises me. I installed solar in 2008, when I considered it financially marginal. Today's rates seem like a slam dunk to me. Curious how you did your calculation. Here's mine.

I'm in the D.C. area, hardly an ideal location either. But every kilowatt of installed capacity generates roughly 1000 KWH per year, on my roof which has few trees or other obstructions but is poorly oriented (low sloping, pointing west).

At $3/installed watt, obviously a kw costs about $3000. The 30% federal tax credit means the actual cost to the homeowner is about $2100. I won't include any state incentives, or possible sale of RECs (renewable energy credits) as those vary from state to state.

Once I add in all of the surcharges (delivery charges per kwh) on my electricity bill, I am paying about $0.145 per kwh. So on my roof, every kw of installed capacity saves about $145/year.

So it is roughly a 7% return per year (145/2100), in my crummy location, with a poorly oriented roof. That all seems pretty conservative. I don't think you can get that return, guaranteed, elsewhere. Seems pretty good to me for an investment in saving the world. :-)

Doesn't that math assume that you get the $145 in perpetuity? On a 20 year time period I calculate an IRR of 3.29%. 30 years would be 5.53%. I would be a little surprised if someone was able to go 20 years without spending a single dollar on maintenance or repair.

I guess I see there being a fair amount of risk (maintenance, underperformance, moving and not recouping the full value) for a relatively small return.

I got some online quotes through a company called EnergySage about 9 months ago. Unfortunately, I deleted the emails. Their quick calculator shows a 10.8 payback period for my house which is better than you have above. However, my recollection is when I requested actual quotes, the real cost was higher and the project would have a negative value.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

I get what you're saying, but wouldn't an improvement in the efficiency per square foot also reduce the labor cost on a per watt basis? I don't know what's realistic to expect in that area though.

Looking at it long term, I would be most likely to do it simultaneous with (or right after) replacing the roof. The Tesla solar roof is ideal (in theory) in many ways: You don't have to worry about replacing the roof separately because it is the roof. You don't have the look of an aftermarket bolt on product. They claim to be stronger than regular tiles. The problem is that as far as I can tell, it's not even available. Assuming it ever is available, it's expected to cost substantially more than even buying a new normal roof and installing normal solar panels. Unless the price comes down, it will probably be mostly a badge for rich people to display that they are concerned about both aesthetics and the environment.

I think this is where the reality of policy clashes with assumptions about physical reality again. So yeah, no doubt, LG or someone will sell you an 80" x 40" panel with 72 cells that will put out 400w when a few years ago maybe a 65" by 40" 60-cell sucker would cost the same and put out 250w. But the reality is that most utilities impose usage caps, maybe at 100% of of residential consumption last year, or 110% of the previous 3-year average, or 120% of future expected load, etc. There are all sorts of good reasons for this related to both public policy and the distribution grid. And I can go into all that if you want. But suffice it to say, I can't see it mattering too much, because density cannot get so high that they'll start letting you install 25+ kW nameplate capacity. Ymmv by state or electric distributor on the exact figure, but all of them in my experience have both rate structures and rulesets that define the limits of "residential" and the beginning of "small commercial/industrial," and the equipment, safety, price of electricity, and everything else changes accordingly.

This is actually one of the problems with the "solar roof" concept, but there are several. The wiring's a nightmare from what I understand (I'm no electrician, but I am friends with a couple). The cost is incredibly high compared to just a simple asphalt shingle roof and mount, but you spotted that bit. I'm sure they're stronger and have longer life than cheapo shingles, but there are lots of roofing materials that accomplish that, it's just that unless you get a ton of snow, most people go for the cheap option. Hard to get cheaper than asphalt, a byproduct of the fractional distillation of oil. But the real question is, how do you control system size (by generating capacity)? I suppose you could have 'dud' shingles that don't generate power, but to get them to look identical, they'd probably be a super-expensive roofing solution--like we're talking $22 per sqft vs $1 sqft for parts, never mind labor. So it's a big premium for aesthetics. Could throw on a slate or clay or copper roof and buy panels separately cheaper. Pretty sure there's lots of reasons why they ended up being more of a prototype than a product.

The "powerwall" battery stuff in most jurisdictions makes no economic sense either. People want it, because Tesla has slick marketing. But you're much smarter to simply have a generator for the occasional power outage and not waste all the money. A couple of states (you could count on one hand) offer time-of-use incentives for storage if the utilities can control the charging and discharging remotely. But even in California where they mandated energy storage, it's much cheaper to go the molten salt route than the distributed battery route. Gaia will forgive you for burning a dozen gallons of diesel per year to ride out those two or three snowstorms.

I mean, part of me holds a bit of contempt for the wastefulness of some of this stuff. Some yuppie in a 4,000sqft mcmansion needs a 17kW system so he can heat his pool to 80 degrees in January and still claim he's "green." I guess if he's gonna heat the pool in February anyways, fine. It's a substitution. But he'd lower the footprint more by moving into a 600sqft apartment and throwing 80% of his electric appliances in the recycling bin. And there's also almost certainly a net win by keeping an old used 90s Corolla on the road rather than buying a new $100k Model X that's so fat and heavy it literally exceeds the 3 ton weight limit of the Brooklyn Bridge. But ain't nobody giving no tax credits to the folks doing that every day. Nevertheless, I'm all but certain just about all of the WWII era end of my family had much less environmental impact per capita than their most eco-conscious children. Small homes. Few appliances. One car. Less commuting. Everything was taken care of and had its useful life stretched to the limit.

[DSpencer]

Re: Xyleco - 60 Minutes

This is actually one of the problems with the "solar roof" concept, but there are several. The wiring's a nightmare from what I understand (I'm no electrician, but I am friends with a couple). The cost is incredibly high compared to just a simple asphalt shingle roof and mount, but you spotted that bit. I'm sure they're stronger and have longer life than cheapo shingles, but there are lots of roofing materials that accomplish that, it's just that unless you get a ton of snow, most people go for the cheap option. Hard to get cheaper than asphalt, a byproduct of the fractional distillation of oil. But the real question is, how do you control system size (by generating capacity)? I suppose you could have 'dud' shingles that don't generate power, but to get them to look identical, they'd probably be a super-expensive roofing solution--like we're talking $22 per sqft vs $1 sqft for parts, never mind labor. So it's a big premium for aesthetics. Could throw on a slate or clay or copper roof and buy panels separately cheaper. Pretty sure there's lots of reasons why they ended up being more of a prototype than a product.

It's my understanding that this is what Tesla does...or would do if they actually sold these roofs.

I'm not an engineer but it's strange to me that they can't do something that combines the two. Like instead of doing small shingles, have 4'X8 panels so the installation, wiring etc is simpler, but still make it function as a roof and look decent. Use whatever material makes sense to match the look as much as is practical. Honestly, I don't find anything inherently unattractive about solar panels. Since when did little asphalt squares become the ideal roof aesthetic? The issue is just that most solar installations look like an afterthought, because they are. They don't match, aren't flat etc.

I mean, part of me holds a bit of contempt for the wastefulness of some of this stuff. Some yuppie in a 4,000sqft mcmansion needs a 17kW system so he can heat his pool to 80 degrees in January and still claim he's "green." I guess if he's gonna heat the pool in February anyways, fine. It's a substitution. But he'd lower the footprint more by moving into a 600sqft apartment and throwing 80% of his electric appliances in the recycling bin. And there's also almost certainly a net win by keeping an old used 90s Corolla on the road rather than buying a new $100k Model X that's so fat and heavy it literally exceeds the 3 ton weight limit of the Brooklyn Bridge. But ain't nobody giving no tax credits to the folks doing that every day. Nevertheless, I'm all but certain just about all of the WWII era end of my family had much less environmental impact per capita than their most eco-conscious children. Small homes. Few appliances. One car. Less commuting. Everything was taken care of and had its useful life stretched to the limit.

It's really hard to take the Gore/DiCaprio type seriously because of this issue. How can you step off your private jet and demand everyone saves the planet with a straight face?

This is why the carbon offset idea is so appealing to people. It's like the get out of hypocrisy free card. Oh, sure I live an absurdly luxurious lifestyle that is terrible for the planet, but I pay money to make it all OK. Didn't the Catholics already try something like this before...?

Nonetheless, like you said, it's probably fair to say it's a substitution because they're gonna do it anyway. In general, I think it's unrealistic to expect any significant part of the population to voluntarily live far below their means to save the Earth. That's why I think the best thing we could do as a species is reduce the human population over time so that poor people can live like rich people already do without utterly destroying the planet. What's more desirable: 5 billion people living an average American lifestyle or 25 billion people living in tiny apartments eating cricket flour every meal? I'll take the former.