righty questions skeptic's comment about the problematic lack of P2O proof as being commercially viable

If this were some high school project, or competition for a prize for unique ideas, then a proof of concept would be an admirable goal.

This is not the case, what is being worked on here is a business model for a public company...quite a different story. Proving a concept prior to proving it can make a profit...within the confines of the regulatory sytem that regulates it, in some eyes would be fanciful.

Trying to appease some message board poster prior to having all the necessary legal and regulatory requirements in place to pursue a profit making business might be a worthwhile pursuit to some...but not all.

In this case the permitting process is quite important before an all out conceptual proofing is commissioned, especially if that proofing is to be costed against incomes yet generated.

The reason for that is very very simple.....if they cannot scale up and stay within acceptable emissions, then they have a "conceptual" problem.

Whether that is perceived or not...nothing matters more than proving the permit is attainable and moreover "in hand".

Afterall without the permit, no proof of concept is worth a hill of beans, as they will be back to the conceptual drawing board.

The arguement presented is somewhat valid, but loses favor when demands for "value" are the basic precursory ingredient for their basis, after-all....value...in this case cannot be established until "viability" is established.

There is more than one ingredient required to achieve viability, and it pretty much starts with the permit...then comes revenues, then profitability.

Demanding proof of concept in a startup such as this scenario, long before establishing operational functionality...is clearly outside the realm of necessity....and more of a demand to establish security beyond the natural speculation environment within which this technology clearly resides.

With permit in hand that environment begins to progress.

In the meantime folks either have the nads to speculate or they do not, but to make unrealistic demands on proof of "concepts" or "value propositions", prior to the permitting milestones, is not in my opinion the mark of a sound decision making process.

Rather that of a cart before the proverbial horse.

Equally so...criticizing a businessman who is following the necessary processes, for not spending copious time and/or resources to this end, prior to having his process approved, is rather inappropriate.

After-all, the process is in gear, as can be evidenced by the regulators, all one needs to do...if skeptical...is simply wait for the outcome of what is in process, then re-evaluate.

Terribly simple theory really.

Sweating a brow over what a speculator may or may not do interim...is not really time well spent.