I understand it isn't additional but it is likely to coat now than double of both combined.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 8:16 PM That One Guy /sarcasm < [email protected]> wrote: > thats the point, its not additional, consolidating two things into one. > Not a fan of regulation, but considering some of the roof repairs ive done > coming in after a shoddy crafstman, I would hope some serious safety regs > go into play on this stuff > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Lewis Bergman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > They look great butit is going to have to compete with both regular > shingles and electricity. Pretty tough. Maybe if California mandates it. > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 7:26 PM That One Guy /sarcasm < > [email protected]> wrote: > > most of this tesla nonsense i ignore, green liberal puffery > but this looks promising, as in really promising > and if batteries can fully discharge multiple times the $/kw is way offset > > I envision a day when all shingles are solar cells. I hate the liberal > green puffery on solar because of the disastrous environmental footprint it > leaves behind, but replacing toxic asphalt with toxic electricity, thats > something i can get behind, there is potential for a true carbon offset, > something "renewable" has not achieved yet. > Im no tree hugger, I think global warming is a scam, but i do now toxins > are toxic, and the fewer there are the better. > > now if each of you could just donate to my gofundme a 100 to 1000 dollar > donation, I will be happy to put this up on my house > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think they would be more expensive, just more finicky... And > matching your charge controller cycling/dwell, etc. is much more important > for Li than just wet or dry for what we have now. And just getting a > Solar charge controller for Li is problematic right now, not even matching > settings on a charge controller to some arbitrary type of Li batteries that > you may dig out of an electric vehicle without a full set of specs or > without being able to match the batteries to the array you decide to define. > Charging the Li batteries I use in hobby stuff is not for the > light hearted. There are many rules, like not combining battery strings, > in the Li world that don't exist in the wet world. I can string two 12V > deep cycles together and slap a 24V charger on them and not have to worry > about blowing up the house. Not true for Li... > Maybe someone on the list has more experience with these than I > do. Li strings have to have circuitry to prevent over discharging and too > high a discharge rate. You folks are pretty inventive and could come up > with all that. Not sure I want to take that on. I would like a nice > solution with solar charge controller matched to it and all in DC.. > > On 10/29/16 3:42 PM, Bill Prince wrote: > > I would argue that they may be different, and perhaps incrementally more > expensive than lead acid to charge manage. But not double. so perhaps a > 27,000 watt-hour charge controller for lead acid is $2000 (pure > speculation). The charge controller for a 13,500 watt-hour LI charge > controller might be about the same price. > > The power wall is probably impractical simply because of the voltage > that it runs at. Isn't it something like 500 volts? Not very usable from > our perspective unless you want to double convert (first to AC, then > back to DC). It would be much nicer to build a ~~ 56 volt system from > surplus LI batteries and move on. > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 10/29/2016 3:34 PM, Robert Andrews wrote: > > But charging Li batteries is nothing like charging lead acid and you > need to have the right kind of charger for specific types of Li > batteries... That's the issue right now. Otherwise I would be buying > Li batteries like Pez... > > On 10/29/2016 10:47 AM, Bill Prince wrote: > > So it forwards the argument Chuck proposed; salvage battery packs from > electric cars. DC all the way. > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 10/29/2016 10:35 AM, Robert Andrews wrote: > > About 1.5 time lead acid will do. It's something I am drooling over > for my remote sites... But the charging situation is the deal > breaker... double conversion in and out of AC... and you have to use > their solar If I remember right... > > On 10/29/2016 08:44 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: > > True. I wonder how many cycles it will do at that DOD. > *From:* Bill Prince > *Sent:* Saturday, October 29, 2016 9:42 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Tesla solar roof > > But did you notice that it allows 100% discharge? > > Doing the same thing with lead acid would require 27,000 watt hours. > Double the cost. > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 10/29/2016 8:34 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: > > 5000 watt of inverter is worth $1250. > (5500-1250)/13500= > � > 31 cents per watt hour.� > � > You guys have posted battery costs of half that.� > � > *From:* Craig Schmaderer > *Sent:* Saturday, October 29, 2016 6:14 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Tesla solar roof > � > Chuck what do you think of the upgraded battery?� $5,500 > � > � > Image > > � > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *From:* Af mailto:[email protected] on behalf of Craig Schmaderer > mailto:[email protected] > *Sent:* Friday, October 28, 2016 8:04:11 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [AFMUG] Tesla solar roof > � > Looks sweet.� I hope it doesn't cost more than the house.� > > Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > � > > > > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
