If you can build 200MW of power in one installation versus 200MW over 5 or 10 installations of PV or wind, the investment industry will look more favourably on giving you the money.

That's an argument to change the rules for the investment industry, not against microgeneration. The point, again, is power: once the large semi-monopolists are back in power on the market, they will again aim at stiffling the 'competition', not at expanding renewables. (This is one of the reasons feed-in tariffs work better than certificates; and that most - but not all - existing quasi-monopolist utilities make little use of, and fight feed-in tariffs tooth-and-nails.) So in the end, I am okay with large utilities taking part in renewables development, but the rules of the game should be set up so that there is a de-facto clear priority for new players entering the 'market'.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

So the four developers look to have fixed contracts for about 2000 MW, with more vague commitments for thousands more. And I note I also saw that SCHOTT (the maker of receivers) wants to run up production to an impressive 1 GW/year.

That's more than I thought. But say 30 GW of CSP in the EU by 2020 is not beyond the scale of growth shown by wind and PV. (Wind achieved it by 2003, about 10 years after the start of 100-MW-scale growths in EU countries, and wind has a much higher capacity factor; PV is still only around 5 MW in the EU, with rapid growth from around 2003, but at the present rate of growth, 30 MW by 2013 doesn't look unlikely.)

But anyway, hopefully, solar thermal is now going to be the third renewable to mature in the electricity sector. I hope (dry-rock) geothermal will follow soon.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}