Member Info for 15LIVES

maybe one of the two who recommended your post could explain?

there's clearly people on here prepared to lap up any old ****e you post, castle if it's what they want to hear and believe.

you claim powerhouse technology is more self sufficient and more cost effective than any others and you don't have the articulation or intelligence to back it up.

There was nothing sly about it, Castle.

I told you.

Says me!

SAYS ME!

Is that seriously your answer, Castle to Red and myself questioning you on something so pertinent and relevant?

Red

We just posted those at exactly the same time.

If that doesn't convince him we're two separate posters nothing shall.

Castle

Could you expand on your claim that Powerhouse produce hydrogen in a more self sufficient and cost effective way?

How do they produce it more self sufficiently than say manufacturers of electrolysers?

Also, do you have a cost projection for Powerhouse's hydrogen production compared to the other manufacturers to whom you refer?

Thanks in advance.

Divvyup

In addition to your colour chart there is also brown, pink and turquoise hydrogen.

The colour reference is defined by the method of production and the energy source used for that production.

Whilst pyrolysis is in itself green, the only true green hydrogen is that produced from renewable means where the by product is oxygen.

Tm58

Syngas produces CO2 when burnt.

As I understand it anyway.

But happy to be corrected.

Testpack

The Powerhouse Energy website states its pyrolysis on the home page.

Hope this helps.

Dusty

As I say, no one is fooling me.

Dusty

No one is fooling me.

Just to clarify for you: my post yesterday did not give validation to Glenhoss' post that his son said 'it won't ever work' (your interpretation).

At no point have I ever said this technology will not work. The bit of research I did yesterday was purely focused on the claims being put forward that Powerhouse technology is a) Unique b) Cutting edge and c) Carbon neutral.

I've put 'your interpretation' above because, even that you've misinterpreted. What Glennhoss actually said was that his son didn't think it would be viable but that people should look into it rigorously.

It's just a perfect example of how a poster tries to bring something new and relevant to the board and it gets totally misinterpreted.

I was a long term holder here when Peel pulled out of Scotland due to Powerhouse technology being classed as an incinerator. I was bloody furious because it's not incineration. But regardless of what I or anyone on here thinks, there is that perception and belief amongst the public that it is incineration, and because of that there is a public relations issue to be addressed. It was because of that and the current and increasing backlash in Australia recently reported by ABC news Australia that I thought it worthy of a mention here. The bit of research I did in the pub over a few pints led me to Hitachi Zosen Inova and their leading Australian advisor and his warning against companies using technology unproven at full scale.

Hitachi Zosen Inova has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been mentioned here. So, in the spirit of worthy discussion and something new, I brought it to the board.

Dusty

What I actually said was that I did a bit of research online.

Moab

Apologies. I should have spell checked that.

Castle

On the first web page on the Powerhouse website it states that their process is pyrolosis.

For some reason you keep saying it's gasification.

Pyrolosis is the absence of air; gasification uses a low amount of air.

Whilst the pyrolosis process itself is carbon neutral, you still have to get the kiln at temperature. If this isn't done via renewable energy means or hydrogen then it's not carbon neutral.

That's not me stating that. I'm just repeating what top scientists are saying.

There is potential here.

If Powerhouse can do what they are aiming to do then the share price has the potential to multiply many fold. However, when you research into the technology and learn of the massive investments in time and money being made by such huge chemical companies such as BASF etc into the field of pyrolosis and gasification, you can only question whether a start up like Powerhouse really can produce something these leviathans within the industry can't.

Glennhoss

That's fascinating to learn and a real insight from his perspective.

Best of luck to him with his studies into this vitally important field.

Red

Castle may be the only one openly claiming Powerhouse technology to be green, but the recommendations his misleading posts get say otherwise.

Number 2 in your post is worth expanding upon:

I read some insightful overview today from a scientist about how oil drawn off from Pyrolosis and fed back into the system of plastic manufacture is worse for the environment than Virgin sources.

Glennhoss

I had a few hours spare today in the pub over a few pints so just did a bit of research online.

I'm certainly not claiming to have any experience in the field of pyrolosis, but just a bit of basic research thinking outside of the box, not from the point of view of an investor desperately looking for reassurances, quickly informs that only pyrolosis by renewable sources can claim to be truly carbon neutral.

Powerhouse Energy has potential, but there is so much misleading here it defies belief at times. It's being put forward mainly by Castle, as being a simplistic undertaking, almost like a plug and go system that shall get the test centre up and running without any problems. As if the kiln is a certain magic box to solve our environmental hurdles. Castle lacks the articulation and intelligence to argue his points, and some of his followers seem even less so. That he wrote a post the other day about Red camping and some pointless comment about tent poles and it getting recommendations spoke volumes about some of those invested here.

Powerhouse technology is not unique. Neither is it cutting edge, for companies already utilising pyrolosis technology, especially in Denmark, can claim that. I doubt very much too that it is truly carbon neutral.

I commented earlier today about how Australian broadcaster ABC was reporting waste to energy projects were being put on hold throughout the country as communities were up in arms about them. You would think that an investor in Powerhouse Energy, with Peel's forced abandonment of its Scotland venture due to public backlash, would give my comment serious consideration and a measured reply, especially with so much hope and expectation having been built up here the last several months concerning our antipodean partner. No one here knows whether National Hydrogen has raised the necessary finance to move forward. Yet, despite this, and along with the growing backlash of Australian communities, coupled with a prominent Australian adviser within the pyrolosis industry advising companies against purchasing technologies not tested at full scale, some here still expect a binding contract to be announced by National Hydrogen.

Hija Red

Hope you're well?

No doubt some on here shall think I'm talking to myself talking to you, but at least it plays with his head.

Are you aware of the means by which Powerhouse's kiln shall be run?

I ask because I did a bit of research today and a leading US scientist states that pyrolosis can only truly be classed as carbon neutral if the fuel for the kiln comes from renewable sources or full hydrogen. He states that whilst the pyrolosis process itself creates no CO2, if the means to keep the kiln at the required temperature is not fed by pure hydrogen or renewable sources then the process can not be claimed to be carbon neutral.

Whilst syngas from the pyrolosis process contains hydrogen, the burning of said syngas produces CO2, therefore rendering claims of the process being carbon neutral inaccurate.

Any thoughts?

Thought I'd try to open up the debate here.

Here's hoping.

ABC news Australia is reporting that waste to energy projects across the country are being stalled and put on hold as regional residents protest about such developments.

Amal Jugdeo, Australian technical specialist for Hitachi Zosen Inova, global green technology giant who advise on and help build waste to energy plants across the world, is warning clients against pyrolosis and gasification technologies that have not yet been proven to work at full scale, citing Air Products 2016 failure into the technology and its subsequent $1bn write off.

Could this be the reason for National Hydrogen being quiet when news was expected by now?

Are Hitachi Zosen Inova working with and advising National Hydrogen?

Blocking up the forum!

Says the man who's posted here 184 times in the past 30 days compared to my 41.

For the sake of the environment and British productivity I hope your predictions turn out to be correct, Castle.

However, if you feel the concerns and questions I have are merely 'dribble', then you deserve to lose money here.

How pathetic: stop crying.

As if.

But if the thought of me doing so makes you feel better then go for it.

I'm not a hater of Powerhouse if that's what you're referring to. I think the potential technology is a great opportunity for the environment and from which to make money.

But I do have reservations, which I question and sound out here. After all, that's what a bulletin board is for.

I'm at a loss as to the obscure crap from random sources to which you refer. And as for irrelevant...

Everything I question is relevant to Powerhouse's undertaking.

Maybe you thought that one I asked this morning was irrelevant. You know, the one about Powerhouse's Mcap going forward if things go according to plan over the next twelve months?

Or perhaps the one about whether Will Davidson is likely to sign a binding contract or hand money over without a full scale unit having been proven to work?

Maybe it is my questioning the claim Powerhouse shall benefit from United Hydrogen's IPO on the NASDAQ?

Perhaps it's my reservation about the set up that is United Hydrogen, and how all 37 companies (or is it 25?) don't appear to have any independent management explained on their websites?

Could it be my asking what others thought of 30silver's cogent and enlightening post a few weeks ago regarding the feedstock for final testing?

Obscure, bottomless crap and irrelevant!

Do me a favour Jancux!