I bet the salesman had a different take on it.

No necessarily true. If you are investing in hardware for a fleet, some future proofing can make sense even if you don't have a specific use in mind.

Or in other words, of course they are trying to be king of internet search. And its not a 'covert' attempt, nor is Cortana a 'Trojan Horse" as called in the article. Its clearly Microsoft. In fact, I think this is an intentionally "in your face" strategy, not covert.

But some writers like the idea of secretive strategies, enough to invent them.

This might be more useful in reverse. Set it for 10 feet and really loud. If someone steals your phone, an alarm goes off when they get a certain distance away.

Two renewable energy resources, both focal points to today's green energy planning, both subsidized in similar manners. Neither can stand on its own due to intermittent.

Nope, I can't think of one single reason they can be compared against each other.

I guess you are wondering why it is done all the time.

So, you think it is ironic that radios and cars are in no way analogous to wind and solar....OK, whatever tickles you. I guess I did miss that one.

Compared to what other source? If you have one with historically better projections please share.

I've noticed exactly where both technologies stand after the last decade of significant investment, and I've noticed that realistic projections show their development trend continuing relative to each other.

And sorry, but your analogy is a complete fail on every level. Did you just pick two unrelated things at random?

Hmmm. Think that through. Destruction of the pharmaceutical industry......what could possibly be bad about that?

Don't carve it up regionally, and please don't pick a single day, that is worthless.

Look at total generation MWh nationally over a year's time.

The latest EIA 2014 projections for growth. Hardly exponential, and they've been pretty close to reality in those projections.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a...

People like to play around with rates of capacity installation but that is just a PR game. What really matters is results and kilowatt-hours generated. Wind generates a much greater amount of power each year than solar, despite similar investments over the last decade. Its not even close.

Wind is kicking solar's ass. And there is good reason.

Professor Geoffrey Alpert = Captain Obvious

I think 4 percent is significant, and while I agree its not a central factor, it is a move away from an already sub optimal return on investment compared to commercial.

As for energy to construct the mount, there is good data out there on EROI, energy return on investment. As a whole, solar does not fair very well. It is one key reason I prefer a heaver portfolio of wind over solar in a diverse energy supply scheme.