# Certanteed Landmark Solaris



## echase (Dec 18, 2009)

Does anyone have any experience with these? The product looks quite attractive, and qualifies for a 30% tax credit on invoiced material cost. I read there are new colors being manufactured in GA, but don't know what those are, or the material cost. 

Your professional opinions are much appreciated (this is not my area of expertise)


----------



## MJW (Jan 27, 2006)

This was talked about quite a bit and I think most agreed that it's not cost effective, just like their IR shingles. Even with the Tax credit, they cost much more, but you do get a better shingle and warranty. Still not convincing enough for most customers.


----------



## dougger222 (Jan 29, 2004)

Great idea but do we really need these products?

The more research I do the more flaws I see in the "global warming" theory. The politicians that promote the idea are getting filthy rich making people think we need "green" products. Keep in mind there are thousands and thousands of scientist who do not believe in these theories. That is what this is just a theory.

From my experiance a lighter color roof will outlast a darker color roof, plain and simple. The idea of a solar reflective shingle is great as long as they last a considerable amount of time longer than traditional shingles. Will they? Who knows. 

The last 8 years have seen temps drop not rise on average.

Who knows some day we will get fined under the new proposed cap and trade laws if we put non solar reflective shingles on roofs.

IMO, this is just another idea made possible by big government.

I can't get the solar reflective Landmark Solaris shingles here in Minnesota unless I buy a semi load. The shingles are comperable to the Landmark Premium 300 lb per square shingles.

Hope the shingle manufacturers don't lose to much on these products. More than likely they will simply get tax credits from the goverment/tax payer to compensate any loses.


----------



## echase (Dec 18, 2009)

Douger, 

You have opened a can of worms here, and I can't refrain from posting. 

First, energy conservation is not a decision that should be made strictly on global warming. 

Sending our gold over to the arabs for oil seems kinda like a bad idea, especially considering how so many of the like to, you know, blow us up. 

Anything we can do to keep from sending dollars to them seems like a good idea to me... especially if it cuts down on the urban heat island effect, reduces AC bills and makes shingles last longer. 

Global warming is not a theory. While it is true temperature has not increased dramatically during the last eight years it has not decreased either. Also, the receding ice caps, melting glaciers, and 
rising sea levels are very clear. Global warming is no longer contested by any reputable scientist. 

It is true that there are hundreds (not thousands) of scientists that say that while the globe is clearly warming, it is not clear that we are the cause of that warming. Exxonn has funded much of their work. 

There are always fringe dissenters that can be used for proaganda. Remember all of the science that said cigarettes were not addictive, and did not cause cancer?

Let's get something clear here about the "scientific debate" on global warming: SINCE 2007 THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BODY OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING WHICH CONTESTS ANTHROPOMORPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE. (That people are causing this) 

When the American Society of PETROLEUM Geologists stopped denying that we are causing climate change any shadow of scientific debate was effectively over. There are still people using this as a political issue, but the science is in, and in my opinion, the politics is bad. I don't like big government, but I have a hard time maintaining support for a party that sometimes seems so divorced from reality on issues that are a matter of FACT, not belief. 

I choose to believe in God. That's a belief that can be debated, since the proof is not concrete to many people. If I choose to believe the world is flat, that just ignorance.


----------



## MJW (Jan 27, 2006)

Until the libs allow a real debate, the global warming is not real IMO, even though they feel the debate is over. There never was one. They will not take any questions or allow anything from the opposition.

It's just another "catastrophe" in order to spend alot of our money, and others to get rich talking about it.


----------



## echase (Dec 18, 2009)

MJW said:


> Until the libs allow a real debate, the global warming is not real IMO, even though they feel the debate is over. There never was one. They will not take any questions or allow anything from the opposition.
> 
> It's just another "catastrophe" in order to spend alot of our money, and others to get rich talking about it.


I have to agree with you about elitists snuffing discussion. The debate IS over in the scientific community, but there is now a political debate on the issue. There needs to be open discussion, there are a lot of facts that are very clear, but there is a lot that's not clear about the future, what effect our actions can have on it, and at what cost to our nation.

The argument about folks getting rich talking about global warming doesn't really hold water for me. Sure, money has a corrupting influence on science, but the big money here is not being controlled by the Al Gores of the world... his petty power pales in comparison to that of Exxon corporation, the Carlylile group, etc. 

MJW: You stated that "global warming is not real" in your opinion. Why do you believe it is not real?


----------



## MJW (Jan 27, 2006)

Where is the proof that global warming is real? Who says the debate is over? What are the facts that are very clear? 

Most of this has been debunked, and I feel we will see even more of it come to light in the near future.

Gore and company only tell you what they want you to hear. They leave out quite a bit. Do a youtube search for global warming and watch the news. If you think this "crisis" doesn't have political agenda to it, I can't help you.


----------



## echase (Dec 18, 2009)

You ask good questions, with the amount of work needed to do something about this it's smart to be skeptical. I'll do my best to give some answers but I can't post links here, so you will have to use google to verify.

First, you asked where is the proof of global warming? The biggest proof is rising ocean temperatures, surface temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 50 years or so. NASA and NOAA have the best documentation of this. 

You also asked who says the debate is over. Every national academy of science from every industrialized nation has issued statements of consensus not only that climate change is occurring, but that it is caused by human activity. 

The membership of these prestigious organizations comprises tens of thousands of respected scientists. There are a few scientists who have expressed doubts that people are the cause of climate change, but they are very few, and most are not well regarded in their fields. 

Your last question was about what evidence is very clear. Receding glaciers around the world, and the disappearing polar ice caps are the most obvious evidence. Billions of tons of C02 in the atmosphere, and the brown haze that now extends beyond city skylines is also pretty clear. (Or not "clear" as the case may be).

Gore is an alarmist, I agree. While much of his message is accurate, with sound science the way it's presented makes it sound like the planet will melt tomorrow. In reality it's mostly a problem that won't be a true catastrophe until our grandchildren are born, but I think they deserve better from us. 

Gore is definitely not gospel, but there are better ways to research potentially life altering science than Youtube. 

I have taken the time to answer your questions, and I hope you are able to take the time to consider my answers. 

I would like to know what you feel has been debunked, and by whom. I really don't feel that science should be a matter of "belief" and I despise the propaganda surrounding this issue, both from Gore's alarmist camp, and that of those that are denying clear, well-documented facts.


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 8, 2003)

MJW said:


> This was talked about quite a bit and I think most agreed that it's not cost effective, just like their IR shingles. Even with the Tax credit, they cost much more, but you do get a better shingle and warranty. Still not convincing enough for most customers.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 8, 2003)

My thoughts on reflective shingles in general is this: A properly ventilated attic space should not need reflective shingles. I think it was GAF in conjunction with the UIC did a study, and I could be wrong maybe it was airvent but who cares, I read once... there was a study of a comparison of black and white shingles on the same test house. The black shingles had something like a 20 degree surface temprature higher than the white. The White, though, had only a 2 degree attic temprature difference between than the black. meaning that while the black is much hotter on the surface, with a properly ventilated attic only 10% of that heat will get transferred to the interior of the attic.

Add insulation into the factor, and what now gets transferred into the living space? Well I don't know I don't think the study took it that far. 

Now I ask myself as a consumer, would I spend $1,500.00 more dollars on my roof for reflective shingles VS. just hring a roofing contractor who knows how to properly ventilate an attic space? I then again would ask myself, assuming that $1,500.00 really did make a difference, would it be paid for by energy savings and if so over what period of time? I don't see how it could pay for it's self if a properly ventilated attic space is only 2 degrees hotter/cooler. Would those solar shingles further lower the attic temprature? 

I'd really like to see some studies. If I lived in a rural area and had a bunch of land, I swear I'd build some test houses. The only question I have is this: How much cooler would the LIVING space be if I installed solar shingles on a properly insulated and properly ventilated attic space? 


I'm all for saving the earth, but I am not convinced reflective shingles actually are worth the added investment. BTW relfective shingles are code on new construction in Chicago as of Earth day 2009. That's not going to stop anyone though.


----------



## echase (Dec 18, 2009)

WOW.

That info, if accurate, makes me MAD. The cost difference for such a minor difference in temperature is laughable. I've read that there is a 20% A/C savings with white, but I bet that's for an uninsulated, poorly ventilated attic. 

The really maddening part is that government is picking up 30% of the materials cost difference, out of our tax money, and they won't give that tax credit for ventilation upgrades, which are clearly more cost-effective. 

Maybe the radiant shields are a better upsell. It's a shame... the certainteed product is attractive, but the cost difference between a GAF 30-year and this lifetime cool roof seems to not be offset by the tax credit. 

As far as saving the earth goes, it really kills me that people are getting all caught up in the global warming "debate" and ignoring the strategic and economic implications of energy savings.

*When we waste energy we are sending money OUT of the US economy, and into the hands of Arabs. That's not patriotic. *


----------



## JTW (Jan 22, 2009)

What are these Solaris running per sq.?


----------



## MJW (Jan 27, 2006)

I'm going to just leave the global waraming issue alone.

As for money going out of our US economy, there is plenty going out with the labor some of these companies supply. If the government would enforce the laws we have instead of thinking up new ones, we would save quite a bit for the US economy.


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 8, 2003)

For the record, SOlaris are a 40 year shingle. I think GAF makes a 30 year reflective shingle which is cheaper. If you really want to go reflective, on the cheap, that may be the way to go.

I don't have exact prices with me, but I recall the last job I bid was a $1,500 upgrade on an 18 square house. This $1,500 included additional profit for me, since I markup labor and material. I am sure someone not marking up material would have an easier time selling. I feel if I am selling a product that costss more, I deserve a little more about me.


----------



## BamBamm5144 (Jul 12, 2008)

Grumpy, I saw the same results you did about the attic temperature difference between a black and white shingle when vented properly. I want to say it was Air Vent that did the test.


----------



## echase (Dec 18, 2009)

I thought the Solaris was lifetime? The thing is they have some nice dark colors, (which I can't figure out) the GAF is all really light colors. 

Markup on materials is expected, and since the tax credit is for materials only customers shouldn't mind a markup on materials, as long as the labor costs are reasonable. :whistling


----------



## echase (Dec 18, 2009)

MJW said:


> I'm going to just leave the global waraming issue alone.
> 
> As for money going out of our US economy, there is plenty going out with the labor some of these companies supply. If the government would enforce the laws we have instead of thinking up new ones, we would save quite a bit for the US economy.


Damn good point there... especially the bit about enfoorcing the laws we have before making new ones.

Still, I'd rather see money going to the Mexicans than the Arabs. At least the illegal laborers are working hard for it, and not, you know, trying to blow us up.


----------



## MJW (Jan 27, 2006)

echase said:


> Still, I'd rather see money going to the Mexicans than the Arabs. At least the illegal laborers are working hard for it, and not, you know, trying to blow us up.


Do you really want to compare illegal labor to the Arabs oil? How about some facts.......

Everyone alive right now WILL need oil the rest of their lives. Oil brings hundreds of billions of dollars into our economy and into our government in taxes. It gives us thousands upon thousands of jobs.

Illegal labor takes away our jobs. Feeds on our taxes. They don't pay taxes. The contribute very little in terms of buying anything here. They don't pay insurance. They don't have labor laws. They drag down the honest competition. Illegal immigration creates more crime, drugs, violence, and all the money we pay along the way to try and control it with law enforcement, jails, deportation..........


----------



## echase (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm not supporting illegal immigration by any means, don't get me wrong. The logic on taxes doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I am missing something. Many (most?) illegals have false papers so they can be hired by employers who "don't know any better". That fake social security number is used to withold taxes from payroll... but these people don't get income tax refunds, social security or medicare, so I don't think it's true that they "don't pay any taxes" ... a suck on our system, maybe, but at least some taxes are paid. 

I'm not foolish enough to think we can stop using oil anytime soon, I just think we should take any REASONABLE steps to not waste energy. 

I don't understand how sending billions of dollars to the arabs every year for energy is bringing money into our economy, but again, I'm probably just not understanding the big picture, maybe you can explain this to me?


----------



## MJW (Jan 27, 2006)

Most illegals in this business have no papers. They are just hired as subs and paid cash. Very few in residential construction have paid employees to pay SS, medicare, etc.....

Look up how much money the government takes in just on taxes at the pump. Do you really think that money goes just to pay for our roads and bridges?
Look up how much profit there is in the oil industry right here in the US. Those people spend their money and get taxed again right here in the US (our economy). 
I buy shingles and get paid to install them. I spend my money here, which creates more work for someone else.
You have to know basic economics. 

There are billions spent every year that we could talk about and whine about, but the fact is we need oil, one way or another. We don't need illegal labor, even though some think we do. We have plenty of people here to do the work, especially now that thousands of jobs are being sent over seas because of our "situation".


----------

