9 ms·

Solar is cheaper because of you suckers that don't have panels. There is a good government subsidy up front which people know about but the real secret is green

Solar is cheaper because of you suckers that don't have panels. There is a good government subsidy up front which people know about but the real secret is green energy credits. The green energy credits that the power companies are required to buy from home owners are worth at least as much as the electricity. If it wernt for these incentives then more efficient things like solar hot water would win out, but instead I put a PV array on my roof. When I got my panels the anticipated payback period was just 5 years in Massachusetts.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
linuxguy2 12y ago
Isn't that assuming that people live in a state with an SREC market? In Missouri where there isn't an open market for SRECs my utility company offered to buy my credits for a puny $5 per which is down from above $20 per a few years ago.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  In my understanding, it isn't the state that matters, but rather the type of firm that sells you power. If e.g. you have Ameren UE or another investor-owned corporation, they are required to pay something like the going rate for your excess power. However, if you're with a co-op like Laclede Electric, they aren't required to pay more than a small fraction of the price, and even then under onerous conditions like only giving you credits that expire within a year. That isn't to say I'm a fan of Ameren. They get up to their own shenanigans, just not these particular shenanigans. I suspect the reason they don't care about this is that it's a perfectly PUC-acceptable reason to raise rates for everyone else. At a co-op with voting members, however, that maneuver isn't so easy.
  - djrogers 12y ago
    SRECs are completely different and separate from net-metering or electricity purchasing requirements. In states with an SREC, you can sell renewable energy credits to clearing houses or companies who use those credits to cancel out non-green practices (like buying carbon offsets from Al Gore).
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Solar is cheaper because of you suckers that don't have panels. Surely the economics of the situation dictate that if everyone who didn't have panels had panels, it would be even cheaper, given we are not going to run out of silicon.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The argument is that customers of the power company are funding payments to owners of solar panels. If there are less/no customers of the power company, there aren't as much/any funds for those payments.
  - yaskyj 12y ago
    Also, you can't have these solar panels without the power companies. The solar panels only produce electricity while the sun is up so the people with solar panels are essentially using the utilities as free batteries - produce power during the height of the day when less power is needed and use more power ~5pm when the grid is at its max.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Also, you can't have these solar panels without the power companies. Not true any more, not that it ever really was, is just a lot cheaper to do now - http://www.aquionenergy.com/ http://www.aquionenergy.com/
    - dpierce9 12y ago
      Power is almost always more expensive in the middle of the day. You can see this if you look at the energy component of the hourly electricity price (day ahead or real time) for any of the organized electricity markets (though you aren't totally wrong, the winter load profile does have a local minimum 14-17). Residential use lags in the midday but commercial + residential almost always peaks midday. In other words, solar generation occurs closer to peak pricing (i.e. solar electricity is more valuable electricity).
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
mattstreet 12y ago
Fossil fuels would be more expensive if someone had to pay what it would take to capture and store the pollution.
- keypusher 12y ago
  The same could be said for many things. Cars, plastics, cattle, factories, pesticides, airplanes, etc. Why are fossil fuels special?
dpierce9 12y ago
There is also an implicit government subsidy on coal and gas plants: Not charging them for the externalities they produce namely carbon, mercury, and the other radioactive isotopes they release into the air (not to mention all the water they heat up in our rivers and streams). There is an explicit government subsidy for nuclear in the form of insurance (private insurers won't touch them). Furthermore, the energy distributed generation produces during the day is actually more valuable to the grid (daytime electricity is generally more valuable than night time with rate prices being an average). The energy world is a complex place with plenty of incentives to go around.
- oillio 12y ago
  How many of those Chinese factories producing PV panels are being held responsible for 100% of their externalities?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Externalities go both ways. If you want to hold PV producers responsible for 100% of their calculated externalities, you end up subsidising them anyway.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar-idUSKBN0EF08A20140604 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar... Between 15% and 35% import duty on Chinese solar panels. I don't know if that covers 100% of their externalities, but I'm sure in terms of "taxes paid for externalities caused" they are WAY ahead of any carbon industries now. This probably wipes out most subsidies too.
  - dpierce9 12y ago
    I was simply talking about operating externalities. I haven't spent as much time looking at the construction externalities but my educated guess is that on a per watt of generation capacity, the net out of construction and operation favors PV. Not needing fuel is a huge deal.
erglkjahlkh 12y ago
In the country where I live no one does solar. The reason is that it doesn't get heavy subsidies, and the utilities have dropped their prices to discourage competitors from entering the market. We also screwed up the feed-in tariff system. So, you can drive around local cities for hours and not see one single panel. That might actually be good in the long run. Part of the actual cost is the maintenance, and installation. Most of the solar power fanatics fail to count all the costs in their calculation. With a large scale utility those things are all in.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  At least with Solar City, installation and 30 years of maintenance are included in the cost of the system.
  - shawn-butler 12y ago
    I don't really think that is accurate? It is my understanding the work of installation is under warranty for 30 years. This covers roof leaks, etc. There is not really much to maintain in a standard residential solar installation as there are no moving parts. Except for the panels. They need to be kept clear of debris, dust, shade, snow (depending on geography). It is my understanding that SolarCity does NOT maintain the surfaces. They will let you know of current degradation or fluctuations but it's up to you to debug / clear the problem. In places with non-optimal solar climate I imagine that clearing the snow will be a pretty labor intensive job?
    - aharonovich 12y ago
      No, and there is a financial proof: you can get a PPA deal. If the snow makes the output lower you just don't pay anything and the company losses. So we can assume that either the snow just falls off or that they would come clean it.
deeviant 12y ago
It's actually a misconception that solar power is only competitive with subsidies. In the past, it has absolutely been true, but today solar power can really stand on it's own two legs in terms of LCOE(basically the metric that gives a reasonable cost/watt). Your example (and the OP's) is from rooftop solar, which is a different market. It's much more expensive than utility scale solar, which is the real winner right now in terms of solar power cost performance. But don't get my wrong, I do strongly support subsidies for solar power, it's benefits are many-fold: less GHG, more energy independence, more money in solar R&D further bringing solar power to grid parity in more and more states and markets. If you think about it, fossil fuels will fluctuate, but always trend up, they are limited. Solar power will only go down. In a hundred years, I would be surprised if the grid was 100% Solar/Nuclear(fusion power will be only 50 years away, in a hundred years), with geothermal and hydro here and there.
- bunderbunder 12y ago
  I dislike subsidies for solar; I'd much prefer if we were to tax the things we don't like and let the market take care of the rest. I'm not sure I trust a legislative body composed of people who are very nearly statutorily prohibited from having much expertise in the subject to be able to figure out the best alternative energy source. The market, on the other hand, at least has a fighting chance at getting it right.
  - deeviant 12y ago
    Well I should qualify my statements. I think R&D and one time installation tax credits are great and work. I totally and completely disdain feed-in tariffs. Solar should be able to walk on it's own, but I think it's reasonable to give it a hand up. I don't believe there is too much confusion in terms of what alternative energy source work or do not. There are, however, plenty of entities pushing forward their interests. For a quick run-down on the truly viable alternative sources: Solar power: * Works, it's sustainable, it will only get better. It has already reached grid parity in many markets, this trend will absolutely not reverse but continue. * Is nowhere near it's optimal efficiency, has tons of room for optimization of both cost efficiency and conversation efficiency (basically reducing the area required to reach a desired power output). * Requires a grid that is built with solar power in mind. Requires baseload generation, of which nuclear and natural gas are the best candidates (assuming the natural gas glut continues on). Wind Power: * Works, proven technology. It has reach grid parity in more markets than solar. * Is nearly at the limits of it's theoretical efficiency. There are pretty much only manufacturing cost and economy-of-scale gains to be had here, which I think really hurts wind power's future unless some sort revolutionary change happens in manufacturing process takes place. * Also needs a grid that plays nice with, with baseload assistance. Hyro: * Not much to say here, it's capped, very little room to grow. Extremely economically efficient but serious ecological effects. Geothermal: * See hydro, but will less serious ecological effects. Biomass: * Total crapfest. Until such time as we can bio-engineer some plant that turns sunlight directly into petrol or the like, biomass offers a a net gain to carbon emissions, especially in the case of corn. Sorghum/Sugar Cane is more interesting but hasn't panned out as of yet, mostly because of it being picky where it grows (it seems unwise to turn rain forest area into sorghum fields in the name of alternative renewable energy). Nuclear: * Massive amount of energy in a small form factor. * Potential for very bad accidents. (see: black swan event) * Nuclear proliferation concerns, nuclear waste to manage. * Decent economic efficiency. * Nuclear has a niche but can hardly be the world's power source. Would you want every country to be full of nuclear plants, including those whose governments change monthly, are prone to extreme corruption, etc. There are plenty of trade groups they are lobbying for support of "safe" nuclear technologies such as Thorium based breeder reactors, but the truth is these designs are almost entirely vaporwear, and have faults and dangers of their own. I feel rather strongly the solar is the way forward, with nuclear in stable well-regulated countries for base load, with natural gas/hydro/wind/geothermal filling in the rest.
djrogers 12y ago
Here in Cali there is no green energy credit market for residential solar, so all I got was the 30% federal tax credit. With that credit my break-even point will be just under 5 years. Without said credit, my break-even point would be just over 7 years, which was still a no-brainer for me. Note this is personal experience with my cash purchased system, as I'm not a fan of consumer debt. Any time a company makes more money off the 'financial products' they sell than the actual physical products or services they sell, you're probably better off paying cash.
- yumraj 12y ago
  Who was your provider/installer? Were you satisfied with them?
- reitzensteinm 12y ago
  But California has net metering, which is a huge, non sustainable subsidy. Ad absurdum, consider if everyone purchased enough solar for their household to be net zero. The power companies would not be able to charge anything, but need to maintain the grid and provide power at night, cloudy days etc, with capital costs mostly the same as with 24x7 generation. There's no way power companies would agree to net metering in a free market, so any calculations about the relative cost of solar based on its existence are flawed. It's essentially a calculation of the cost of solar when unlimited battery capacity is provided for free. That doesn't necessarily mean such a policy is bad; artificially lowering the cost of solar increases production, and increased R&D and economies of scale should make the true break even point come sooner. But net metering absolutely will need to be wound back eventually - most likely by grandfathering in those that already have their panels, because nobody wants to piss off a bunch of middle class voters by suddenly making their investments underwater.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Ad absurdum, consider if everyone purchased enough solar for their household to be net zero. The power companies would not be able to charge anything Untrue. Electric utility tariffs in California include both "Energy Rates" ($ per kWh in multiple tiers based on multiples of baseline monthly kWh usage) and "Minimum Charge Rates" ($ per meter per day, irrespective of usage). With net zero usage, only the Minimum Charge Rate could be collected. But, given the way tariff setting works, if net zero was common, the Minimum Charge Rate would be much higher than it is now, to cover infrastructure, etc. costs. The system also includes "standby reservation charges" for energy customers that are also energy generators, but small solar and some other generation systems that aren't selling energy as a primary function and are exporting only "incidental" amounts back into the grid are exempted from those charges under, e.g., PG&E's current tariff schedule. That limited exemption is more defensible as an unsustainable subsidy to small solar (and some other) generators than the basic net zero arrangement is.
brc 12y ago
I'd like someone here to mount a moral case for why driving up the price for regular users of power to subsidise solar panels is acceptable? Would anyone accept that increasing gas taxes to give Tesla owners a cash payment is an ethical proposition? The people most affected by increased electricity prices are the poor. These are the people most unlikely to have solar panels. I'm all for allowing people to put their money into whatever they want. I am against subsidies for solar or any other energy, when those subsidies are paid for by the other users. It is very unfair on low income households.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >The people most affected by increased electricity prices are the poor. If you want to see where solar panels have really taken off, you should pay a visit to the third world where the US government isn't subsidizing them.
  - adventured 12y ago
    You should check out California. It's one of the world's largest solar markets, and it has really taken off there.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      And Hawaii has taken off even more than California. It thrives wherever electricity is overpriced and there's enough sun.
  - bsilvereagle 12y ago
    Demand for solar panels may be higher in some of the third world communities since it is one of the few sources of electricity; there aren't too many grids to connect to.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      Point being that it's one of the few power sources that ARE available to poor people, especially poor people who are not on the grid. It's pretty much just that and diesel generator, in fact.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

linuxguy2 12y ago

Isn't that assuming that people live in a state with an SREC market? In Missouri where there isn't an open market for SRECs my utility company offered to buy my credits for a puny $5 per which is down from above $20 per a few years ago.

jessaustin 12y ago
In my understanding, it isn't the state that matters, but rather the type of firm that sells you power. If e.g. you have Ameren UE or another investor-owned corporation, they are required to pay something like the going rate for your excess power. However, if you're with a co-op like Laclede Electric, they aren't required to pay more than a small fraction of the price, and even then under onerous conditions like only giving you credits that expire within a year. That isn't to say I'm a fan of Ameren. They get up to their own shenanigans, just not these particular shenanigans. I suspect the reason they don't care about this is that it's a perfectly PUC-acceptable reason to raise rates for everyone else. At a co-op with voting members, however, that maneuver isn't so easy.
- djrogers 12y ago
  SRECs are completely different and separate from net-metering or electricity purchasing requirements. In states with an SREC, you can sell renewable energy credits to clearing houses or companies who use those credits to cancel out non-green practices (like buying carbon offsets from Al Gore).

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Solar is cheaper because of you suckers that don't have panels. Surely the economics of the situation dictate that if everyone who didn't have panels had panels, it would be even cheaper, given we are not going to run out of silicon.

maxerickson 12y ago
The argument is that customers of the power company are funding payments to owners of solar panels. If there are less/no customers of the power company, there aren't as much/any funds for those payments.
- yaskyj 12y ago
  Also, you can't have these solar panels without the power companies. The solar panels only produce electricity while the sun is up so the people with solar panels are essentially using the utilities as free batteries - produce power during the height of the day when less power is needed and use more power ~5pm when the grid is at its max.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Also, you can't have these solar panels without the power companies. Not true any more, not that it ever really was, is just a lot cheaper to do now - http://www.aquionenergy.com/ http://www.aquionenergy.com/
  - dpierce9 12y ago
    Power is almost always more expensive in the middle of the day. You can see this if you look at the energy component of the hourly electricity price (day ahead or real time) for any of the organized electricity markets (though you aren't totally wrong, the winter load profile does have a local minimum 14-17). Residential use lags in the midday but commercial + residential almost always peaks midday. In other words, solar generation occurs closer to peak pricing (i.e. solar electricity is more valuable electricity).
- lotsofmangos 12y ago

mattstreet 12y ago

Fossil fuels would be more expensive if someone had to pay what it would take to capture and store the pollution.

keypusher 12y ago
The same could be said for many things. Cars, plastics, cattle, factories, pesticides, airplanes, etc. Why are fossil fuels special?

dpierce9 12y ago

There is also an implicit government subsidy on coal and gas plants: Not charging them for the externalities they produce namely carbon, mercury, and the other radioactive isotopes they release into the air (not to mention all the water they heat up in our rivers and streams). There is an explicit government subsidy for nuclear in the form of insurance (private insurers won't touch them). Furthermore, the energy distributed generation produces during the day is actually more valuable to the grid (daytime electricity is generally more valuable than night time with rate prices being an average). The energy world is a complex place with plenty of incentives to go around.

oillio 12y ago
How many of those Chinese factories producing PV panels are being held responsible for 100% of their externalities?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Externalities go both ways. If you want to hold PV producers responsible for 100% of their calculated externalities, you end up subsidising them anyway.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar-idUSKBN0EF08A20140604 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar... Between 15% and 35% import duty on Chinese solar panels. I don't know if that covers 100% of their externalities, but I'm sure in terms of "taxes paid for externalities caused" they are WAY ahead of any carbon industries now. This probably wipes out most subsidies too.
- dpierce9 12y ago
  I was simply talking about operating externalities. I haven't spent as much time looking at the construction externalities but my educated guess is that on a per watt of generation capacity, the net out of construction and operation favors PV. Not needing fuel is a huge deal.

erglkjahlkh 12y ago

In the country where I live no one does solar. The reason is that it doesn't get heavy subsidies, and the utilities have dropped their prices to discourage competitors from entering the market. We also screwed up the feed-in tariff system. So, you can drive around local cities for hours and not see one single panel. That might actually be good in the long run. Part of the actual cost is the maintenance, and installation. Most of the solar power fanatics fail to count all the costs in their calculation. With a large scale utility those things are all in.

lotharbot 12y ago
At least with Solar City, installation and 30 years of maintenance are included in the cost of the system.
- shawn-butler 12y ago
  I don't really think that is accurate? It is my understanding the work of installation is under warranty for 30 years. This covers roof leaks, etc. There is not really much to maintain in a standard residential solar installation as there are no moving parts. Except for the panels. They need to be kept clear of debris, dust, shade, snow (depending on geography). It is my understanding that SolarCity does NOT maintain the surfaces. They will let you know of current degradation or fluctuations but it's up to you to debug / clear the problem. In places with non-optimal solar climate I imagine that clearing the snow will be a pretty labor intensive job?
  - aharonovich 12y ago
    No, and there is a financial proof: you can get a PPA deal. If the snow makes the output lower you just don't pay anything and the company losses. So we can assume that either the snow just falls off or that they would come clean it.

deeviant 12y ago

It's actually a misconception that solar power is only competitive with subsidies. In the past, it has absolutely been true, but today solar power can really stand on it's own two legs in terms of LCOE(basically the metric that gives a reasonable cost/watt). Your example (and the OP's) is from rooftop solar, which is a different market. It's much more expensive than utility scale solar, which is the real winner right now in terms of solar power cost performance. But don't get my wrong, I do strongly support subsidies for solar power, it's benefits are many-fold: less GHG, more energy independence, more money in solar R&D further bringing solar power to grid parity in more and more states and markets. If you think about it, fossil fuels will fluctuate, but always trend up, they are limited. Solar power will only go down. In a hundred years, I would be surprised if the grid was 100% Solar/Nuclear(fusion power will be only 50 years away, in a hundred years), with geothermal and hydro here and there.

bunderbunder 12y ago
I dislike subsidies for solar; I'd much prefer if we were to tax the things we don't like and let the market take care of the rest. I'm not sure I trust a legislative body composed of people who are very nearly statutorily prohibited from having much expertise in the subject to be able to figure out the best alternative energy source. The market, on the other hand, at least has a fighting chance at getting it right.
- deeviant 12y ago
  Well I should qualify my statements. I think R&D and one time installation tax credits are great and work. I totally and completely disdain feed-in tariffs. Solar should be able to walk on it's own, but I think it's reasonable to give it a hand up. I don't believe there is too much confusion in terms of what alternative energy source work or do not. There are, however, plenty of entities pushing forward their interests. For a quick run-down on the truly viable alternative sources: Solar power: * Works, it's sustainable, it will only get better. It has already reached grid parity in many markets, this trend will absolutely not reverse but continue. * Is nowhere near it's optimal efficiency, has tons of room for optimization of both cost efficiency and conversation efficiency (basically reducing the area required to reach a desired power output). * Requires a grid that is built with solar power in mind. Requires baseload generation, of which nuclear and natural gas are the best candidates (assuming the natural gas glut continues on). Wind Power: * Works, proven technology. It has reach grid parity in more markets than solar. * Is nearly at the limits of it's theoretical efficiency. There are pretty much only manufacturing cost and economy-of-scale gains to be had here, which I think really hurts wind power's future unless some sort revolutionary change happens in manufacturing process takes place. * Also needs a grid that plays nice with, with baseload assistance. Hyro: * Not much to say here, it's capped, very little room to grow. Extremely economically efficient but serious ecological effects. Geothermal: * See hydro, but will less serious ecological effects. Biomass: * Total crapfest. Until such time as we can bio-engineer some plant that turns sunlight directly into petrol or the like, biomass offers a a net gain to carbon emissions, especially in the case of corn. Sorghum/Sugar Cane is more interesting but hasn't panned out as of yet, mostly because of it being picky where it grows (it seems unwise to turn rain forest area into sorghum fields in the name of alternative renewable energy). Nuclear: * Massive amount of energy in a small form factor. * Potential for very bad accidents. (see: black swan event) * Nuclear proliferation concerns, nuclear waste to manage. * Decent economic efficiency. * Nuclear has a niche but can hardly be the world's power source. Would you want every country to be full of nuclear plants, including those whose governments change monthly, are prone to extreme corruption, etc. There are plenty of trade groups they are lobbying for support of "safe" nuclear technologies such as Thorium based breeder reactors, but the truth is these designs are almost entirely vaporwear, and have faults and dangers of their own. I feel rather strongly the solar is the way forward, with nuclear in stable well-regulated countries for base load, with natural gas/hydro/wind/geothermal filling in the rest.

djrogers 12y ago

Here in Cali there is no green energy credit market for residential solar, so all I got was the 30% federal tax credit. With that credit my break-even point will be just under 5 years. Without said credit, my break-even point would be just over 7 years, which was still a no-brainer for me. Note this is personal experience with my cash purchased system, as I'm not a fan of consumer debt. Any time a company makes more money off the 'financial products' they sell than the actual physical products or services they sell, you're probably better off paying cash.

yumraj 12y ago
Who was your provider/installer? Were you satisfied with them?
reitzensteinm 12y ago
But California has net metering, which is a huge, non sustainable subsidy. Ad absurdum, consider if everyone purchased enough solar for their household to be net zero. The power companies would not be able to charge anything, but need to maintain the grid and provide power at night, cloudy days etc, with capital costs mostly the same as with 24x7 generation. There's no way power companies would agree to net metering in a free market, so any calculations about the relative cost of solar based on its existence are flawed. It's essentially a calculation of the cost of solar when unlimited battery capacity is provided for free. That doesn't necessarily mean such a policy is bad; artificially lowering the cost of solar increases production, and increased R&D and economies of scale should make the true break even point come sooner. But net metering absolutely will need to be wound back eventually - most likely by grandfathering in those that already have their panels, because nobody wants to piss off a bunch of middle class voters by suddenly making their investments underwater.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Ad absurdum, consider if everyone purchased enough solar for their household to be net zero. The power companies would not be able to charge anything Untrue. Electric utility tariffs in California include both "Energy Rates" ($ per kWh in multiple tiers based on multiples of baseline monthly kWh usage) and "Minimum Charge Rates" ($ per meter per day, irrespective of usage). With net zero usage, only the Minimum Charge Rate could be collected. But, given the way tariff setting works, if net zero was common, the Minimum Charge Rate would be much higher than it is now, to cover infrastructure, etc. costs. The system also includes "standby reservation charges" for energy customers that are also energy generators, but small solar and some other generation systems that aren't selling energy as a primary function and are exporting only "incidental" amounts back into the grid are exempted from those charges under, e.g., PG&E's current tariff schedule. That limited exemption is more defensible as an unsustainable subsidy to small solar (and some other) generators than the basic net zero arrangement is.

brc 12y ago

I'd like someone here to mount a moral case for why driving up the price for regular users of power to subsidise solar panels is acceptable? Would anyone accept that increasing gas taxes to give Tesla owners a cash payment is an ethical proposition? The people most affected by increased electricity prices are the poor. These are the people most unlikely to have solar panels. I'm all for allowing people to put their money into whatever they want. I am against subsidies for solar or any other energy, when those subsidies are paid for by the other users. It is very unfair on low income households.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>The people most affected by increased electricity prices are the poor. If you want to see where solar panels have really taken off, you should pay a visit to the third world where the US government isn't subsidizing them.
- adventured 12y ago
  You should check out California. It's one of the world's largest solar markets, and it has really taken off there.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    And Hawaii has taken off even more than California. It thrives wherever electricity is overpriced and there's enough sun.
- bsilvereagle 12y ago
  Demand for solar panels may be higher in some of the third world communities since it is one of the few sources of electricity; there aren't too many grids to connect to.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    Point being that it's one of the few power sources that ARE available to poor people, especially poor people who are not on the grid. It's pretty much just that and diesel generator, in fact.