**1999 Parabolic Trough Workshop Feedback Questionnaire**\
The following responses were taken from the feedback questionnaire
handed out on the last day of the 1999 Parabolic Trough Workshop,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy SunLab.

*Particular interest or value of workshop*

-   I learned much about the technology and marketing issues.

-   Being able to relay O&M problems to the labs and industry.
    Maintaining contacts with labs and industry is vital.

-   Reports of the O&M companies. Contribution to the discussion of
    World Bank and R.W. Beck consultant.

-   World bank\'s position towards ISCCS.

-   Domestic Outreach.

-   GEF Update, European activities, SEGS involvement, broad attendance
    from worldwide stakeholders.

-   The workshop breakout sessions.

-   I felt that all aspects of the workshop was extremely interesting
    and informative. The most interesting to me was the HCE &
    concentrator sessions. Also the international input

-   GEF Viewpoint, O&M needs (RE mirrors, tubes), cost reduction
    (mirrors and tubes)

-   Excellent interactions particularly at the component level.
    Excellent participation (including candid presentations by World
    Bank).

-   Updates on what\'s happening (EuroTrough\...).

-   Market development activities. Discussion relating to real world
    development of plants.

*Less or least interesting aspect of workshop*

-   Not much really.

-   I was in break out session in which I had little expertise. I would
    have been of more value somewhere else.

-   Discussion of details on future R&D. Discussion of basic principles
    from scratch (ISCCS, Storage, tower).

-   None.

-   Everything had value.

-   There was nothing that was less interesting or of little value to
    me.

-   Strictly R&D aspects.

-   Much too much focus on only near-term activities with current
    plants. No focus on next generation facility. Involve more people \<
    50 years old.

-   All valuable.

-   Detailed technical discussions (eq HCE developments).

*How to strengthen government-industry partnerships to help expand
technology deployment*

-   Current O&M issues separated from development issues. This
    conference achieved this to some degree, but must continually be
    emphasized.

-   Giving the industry participants a bigger influence on the topics
    set into the agenda.

-   Accomplishments of Objectives - Did we succeed? Why did we fail?

-   I would like to see us agree on the specifics of the next trough
    plant - size, gas, cost cost/kWh.

-   Updates of projects (USA & Europe). Market penetration
    (possibilities). Technology & marketing pathways for future
    installations.

-   Fixes for existing plants. Economical/competitive design.
    Cogeneration/combined cycle. Information & aid from Sandia, NREL,
    etc.

-   How to make a project happen.

-   Research needed to have significant impact on cost reduction and
    reliability improvement.

-   No significant change other than current update, etc.

-   Point and line focus devices - it is not really possible to consider
    just troughs in isolation. The multiple pathways to large-scale
    solar thermal generation imply multiple technologies are going to
    come into play.

*Additional Comments*

-   Great Meeting. You all did an excellent job! However, it would have
    been great if there was an organizational opportunity to actually
    visit the SEGS site during the workshop.

-   Too much on platter. Two days only. Great meeting NAZI\'s. Excellent
    job.

-   Building a link to activities in China & Australia. A specific
    industry break-out dealing with project policies. From roadmapping
    to set up a technology road show: increasing public attendance. I\'m
    very pleased having been invited to this workshop and I enjoyed it
    very much participating.

-   Hold total meeting time to no more than 1-1 1/2 days.

-   Have breakout sessions moderated by experienced moderators. Lot to
    accomplish in short period of time.

-   Parallel sessions, because lot of less interesting subjects.

-   I would much rather see individual sessions shortened and not run
    concurrently. I felt that every session was important but because of
    the concurrent sessions, I was not able to participate in all.
    Provide better, more informative summary sessions.

-   More focus on lessons learned less focus on mechanical engineering.

-   Include some forward thinkers (like USAID, University researchers,
    etc.) along with the \"hands-on\" people.

-   Shorter. 1-1/2 days not 2-1/2 days. Ask participants to prepare
    short list(s) ahead of time to expedite process.

-   More Europeans. More Industry. More lunch.