I think that's a weak objection. Public confusion about energy is normal and irrelevant. If public funds are spent via tax abatements etc to encourage solar bu

I think that's a weak objection. Public confusion about energy is normal and irrelevant. If public funds are spent via tax abatements etc to encourage solar builds, this is fine. No serious energy producer is going to be confused about where any given technology excels. But that's not at all what this discussion is about. Apple cannot build nuclear or hydro. Apple can build solar, which >> coal/petro. I get the sense that you're rooting for the nuclear team. OK, but that's not an option here. If Apple doesn't build solar, then Apple is waiting for market forces to deliver unto it a better option, which is clearly not happening. So what would you have Apple do? > As a home user solution with a batter pack in your basement it is kind of neat. And this is dismissive. Apple has built over a GW of generation capacity, plus fuel cell storage. 100% of their global operations are powered renewably. That's a lot of houses. It is not the least-expensive solution today, but building at scale is an appropriate way to push the technology forward. I don't see this as something a reasonable person would criticize.