CPV, page-3142

Seems like it could theoretically save on alot of energy costs but still a way away from being utilised in any practical sense. No mention of costs to produce, time to produce, etc (but will apparently pay itself off in 3 years which is a big claim).

That being said, I'm sure as an architect he would have a fair few contacts which could help promote the product quite quickly and bolster it's claim to be used in plenty of buildings. This could be a threat to our domestic market sales which is my main concern.

For that reason, I hope this product would have to undergo the same rigorous testing that CPV have had to undertake for the last few years.

On the other hand; as many on this forum have pointed out, CPV can't cater to every build/building globally so some competition won't kill us. I personally just don't want to see other companies jump the cue with untested products which fail and lead to a reluctance to accept other options (i.e. CPV)

Anyway that's my two cents worth. My personal thought on this product is that it is not a very aesthetic design, especially compared to CPV, however in the right project I'm sure it can be made to look good.

Also want to see some of these 50 projects come to fruition. I've been in CPV since it floated and starting to feel like it's major major promise after promise!