Quote:
|
When your so called factors prove the status quo is no longer valid in the real world, then there might be something worth discussing, but until such time, the status quo remains with strong growth in the real world, rather than speculative factors in the forum world. I prefer to go with the real world, until proven otherwise and that hasn't happened and there is no sign of it happening any time soon.
|
So you only listen to people who have an interest in promoting the technology? You're not interested in discussing factors that the salesman isn't mentioning. The real world isn't seeing a huge expansion yet, as its early days.
Is this how you make a purchase? Don't you ever ask advice on issues that may affect a major purchase?
I've shown you differing points of view on the older versions of the technology. Issues that these people aren't going to bring up. The issue of energy consumption on plant is an important one for example, and one must question how much energy the plants will actually supply. You claim its been sorted, but we should ask how much does it affect supply.
The amount of back up energy that it is able to create is also an important issue. Many planned systems cite 13hrs. Great for many instances, but there will be instances where it won't be enough, and one will find that the system cannot supply such a sizeable proportion of energy demand than hoped.
These are just examples that could be found (I'm sure they'll be more), and I fail to see how not discussing them is helpful.
If any of that is unreasonable, please explain why.