[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

So you hear optomism in an industry and you don't question it? What if the fossil fuel industry were optomistic that they could build power stations that would use fuel that wouldn't harm the environment? Would you accept it so blindly? You would rightly question it I'm sure.

If you only want other industries to criticise solar thermal, then you might have a long wait. Is the criticisms of the nuclear industry only from wind or solar manufacturers? Or do you also listen to pressure groups and other sources.

Or would you prefer it that we all question all power generation industries?

Personally I prefer the latter. As long as its based upon some kind of truth of course. When I question the viability of solar thermal, its based upon experience of looking at other power generation technologies, and some basic egineering and environmental issues. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at the same time, it would be appreciated if you didn't get so defensive about it, as it is highly detrimental to the discussion of such technology. Any issue I've raised about it you've either said is a "mute point" - even though you've never brought it up; "it's obvious"; or "irrelevant". There is no need for such defensive behaviour if you want a constructive discussion, and none of those responses are helpful and often most inappropriate. How can a comment not previousely mentioned that is relevant be a mute point?

I may have had a cryptic question to begin with, but that does not warrant such responses. You always seem to avoid answering questions I ask, no matter how relevant to the issue in hand.

It's not my role to be critical against something that I support. I have already accepted that all technologies have limitations in their application. I have yet to see you be critical of nuclear energy. Another double standard. My interest lies with renewable energy and I happen to believe its benefits are overall positive. Get over it.