Lloyd has flagged an absolutely critical dimension of sustainable building. In life cycle parlance it is called "design life matching.' Example: If the design life of the shingle matches or exceeds that of the SPV components, all is good; end of life recycling is optimal from economics standpoint. This stuff fits the bill. Conversely, if you put SPV panels over asphalt you'll be remounting the panels at least twice before they are at end of design life, plus the mounts are likely to cause leakage in the archaic system designed in an earlier era to be "low cost" and based on oil.

I have to say that they do look pleasing, but at $13 a watt it's a heafty price to pay, especially when you think of production reductions due to overheating of the panels. dark cells on black laminate material pressed against a roof. I see they created a bit of a buffer in the installation image - but thats still going to be one HOT set of solar shingles.

The best solution (for generating power) is still by using panels on a rack mount with some space for cooling, of if you have the room in the yard - on a tracker system.

These shingles have also been around for quite some time but its good to see an American company pushing solar.

I would object to the "Forever" part of this article. PV cell's only have a 15-30 year expected lifespan... I am sure that you can leave PV cells for even longer they just lose efficiency... I just don't think Forever should be used lightly. The only roofing material I know that is even close to "forever" is stone.

I agree with Hays, the only part of the shingle that is forever is the shingle, not the solar panel, although as JL says, we can reuse the shingle, and replace the panel. I believe the old solar panel is a useful source of silicon for reprocessing as well.

As for the price of $13 a watt, I'm not sure it's as bad as it seems. Solar panels come in at around $9 a watt (AFAIK), so your paying the extra $4 for a shingle. I'm not sure how this compares to buying a roof full of shingles as well as the same wattage of solar panels, but I think this is part of a fair comparison.

$13/watt - yeah, but um... the cost you save in being off the grid far more than makes up for it. So it's still very cheap, considering what you'll save in the long run. I think, especially with the technologies available today, it's absurd that anyone should pay anything for power when we can all get it for free. It's corruption and monopoly at it's best!

in response to the last post:

it's actually pretty tough to SAVE money being off-grid, (I live off-grid) because you are still importing energy in other ways (eg. propane, materials etc). the only way to save money is to sell energy back to the grid, ergo, the need for grid-tied systems. also, consider the added benefit of adding clean energy to the grid - offsetting your neighbor's need to purchase dirty energy. ecological consciousness should extend beyond your own consciousness.

also, i'd suggest rethinking your "get it all for free" statement - consider the high ecological, social and economic costs that goes into fabricating the pv panels, mining silicone, and manufacturing parts. as the saying goes, "there is no such thing as a free lunch"

Whats a watt?

What is a watt????