Can CPV get to $1 per share, page-67

I see that CPV's most vocal poster has gone silent. Did he bail out of the stock or just decide to stop his one-eyed commentary?
If something has happened that I do not know about then I would be interested to know what.

I got out of CPV when I decided that it did not stack up from a power yield perspective and that the costs of manufacture were inevitably going to rise as the company tried to make it jump through hoops. I was scoffed at and dismissed as being "just a negative down-ramper" for stating clear reasons why I was no longer keen on the company or product. I guess that's just what happens when people can diss each other anonymously.

For the record I would like to say that it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to see CPV's stock price floundering. I am a "greenie" through and through and I was initially very enthusiastic for the CPV concept. But as a greenie I also know that green concepts are not just about nice feelings and greenwash potential images. If they are forced to sell on price within a competitive market then they have to deliver the goods and be affordable on their own merits. The only way that is not automatically the case is if they are the only way to advance green aims without bad side effects. Case in point: fossil fuels are cheap, but only because their huge legacy extraction industries have historically been facilitated and subsidised by governments and the tax payers they represent, and because they are also not required to pay for any of the environmental damage they do, or have done to date. Sustainable energy projects that do no damage now or in the future should not have to be as cheap as fossil fuels are from day one. They should be subsidised to get them established. These energy solutions may well cost us more initially in dollar terms, but they will not cost us the Earth. As us greenies are want to say: the global economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the global environment. Screw the planet and your economy goes with it as the first casualty. ( If I can say this without seeming like a complete a$$hole, do I smell smoke? )

So when I analysed the costs/benefits of the concept of ClearVue against those of other current photovoltaic solutions, i.e not just against the use of "electric power from any source" or just plain glass, I concluded that it was not particularly effective. Unfortunately I am forced to conclude that it is going to be quite expensive to deploy in a building as a product, and with the latest designs it seems unlikely to deliver enough power to fully justify its deployment costs - and certainly not without subsidisation. The trials at Vicinity and the lack of info from others have not been encouraging. I could be shown costings that would prove me wrong and I would be very pleased to be so shown (unlike some). But the company has not done so. Instead a single poster has, for reasons of his own, been intent on selling us all vastly more sizzle than steak, and his optimism seems to have found eager hearers here. My take is that CPV is essentially a fairly complex and high-mass design that is essentially not much more than a triple-glazed low-e glass sandwich, that almost as a by-product generates a little bit of power. It cannot produce as much power as silicon PV panels because it has to let the visible light through! Will version 2 be better? Could be, and I hope so.

For comparison I was an early investor in Martin JetPack. It was a great idea. But by the time they came out with a commercialisable design that could be flown legally they ended up with a unit that had to be fully stripped down and serviced after every couple of days of use, I knew then that it was never going to "fly" commercially and I bailed - just in time. I did not lose much compared to others that did not - or would not - see the writing on the wall.

So as King Rat correctly and wisely says above, can there now be some sensible and civil debate.