Member Info for 15LIVES

castle

six plants of what size?

why six plants?

how have you worked out six?

are you able to give even a rough breakdown of your extrapolations that bring you to that figure or, as i suspect, is it just you doing what you have been doing with this share for the past few years: talking utter ******.

Swazers

Your arguments are defeated every time you post.

Because you are trying (and failing) to surreptitiously promote your investment business through this bulletin board, your stance refuses to allow even the slightest of questionable, negative or probing insights. You lack even an iota of objective and balanced reasoning, falling back every time on AI in a desperate attempt to appear knowledgeable and in doing so hopefully get the share price up to recover your financial losses and tattered business reputation in predicting the Powerhouse share price.

You fail to accept that others can be interested in this company, whether invested now or potentially later down the line, but not be so blinkered as you, and it's for these reasons you get, deservedly, so much criticism.

Castle

I work. I've serviced four boilers today. Message on here between jobs.

That's my cover anyway whilst working on this troll farm.

Swazers

You're preaching to the converted on here.

We all know it's not incineration.

Unfortunately, we're not the ones making the decisions on planning applications. Go tell those who need educating. I told Castle years ago to contact the likes of Greenpeace when having this argument with him. They are the one helping drive the misinformation when supporting local activists against 'incineration'.

Swazers

Have you read the idiots guide to sustainability yet?

Slappy

I was shot down in flames a long time ago and many times for stating that the general public, environmentalists and decision makers still see pyrolysis as incineration. It's clearly not, but the headlines always reference incineration when it's in the news. Case in point was Aviva Investors decision to abandon three 'incineration' plants this past year. They were actually pyrolysis plants, but that didn't stop one of the largest pension providers in the country being misrepresented by the mainstream media.

Swazers talks about Powerhouse's technology as if pyrolysis has been invented by them. Listening to him you would think pyrolysis hadn't been around for thousands of years. Yes, Powerhouse is modular and has patents covering its temperature control over the kiln, but it doesn't have anything that is head and shoulders above the competition otherwise their units would be flying off the shelves.

Suppose they get an order tomorrow for three 40 tonne plants. Where is the man power and infrastructure to build them? Is a customer prepared to wait until they've finished one before starting the second? Powerhouse needs to raise tens of millions to finance a purpose built factory in order to satisfy the hoped for demand, otherwise they shall remain a backstreet operation taking years to build one unit at a time.

They are at the foothills of a very large and expensive mountain, but listening to the likes of Swazers you would think they have already reached the summit.

Swazers

You're panicking at the thought of your posts being bumped down again.

Swazers

It is you producing misinformation from which clarity and accuracy are indeed required.

Why are you unable to address your claim that Powerhouse technology is sustainable and provide evidence?

You very often make statements and claims and when challenged are never able or, most likely, never bothered to substantiate them.

Are you seriously saying that if a system which requires forty tonnes of plastic and / or end of use tyres per day is sustainable? If so, I suggest you do some very very basic research, or peruse scientific and environmental journals and learn what is meant by something that can be classed as sustainable.

You have had posts removed for promoting your investment business on here, so it is clearly evident your agenda is to help get the share price up to aid that business at whatever cost, even if doing so means peddling lies and falsehoods such as claiming Powerhouse technology is sustainable when even the most basic level of research proves it is not.

If you are going to state or claim something as fact then you need to be able to back it up, something which you are unable to do with sustainability, for your claim flies in the face if all scientific, environmental and logical thinking.

Divvyup

My definition of sustainable is the one used and accepted globally: a form of energy or product derived from infinite sources such a solar, wind, hydro or plant based building / insulation products in which no fossil fuel has been involved in the manufacturing process.

Quite simply, Powerhouse technology does not meet this criteria.

Also, no technology contaminated by fossil fuels can be part of a circular economy, for by its very definition a circular economy is one rooted in sustainability.

Powerhouse technology is required and needed desperately in my opinion to move us to a better world, but it's wrong to claim it's something it's not and when done so by the likes of Swazers it should be called out and challenged.

Divvyup

Agreed, it aligns with government sustainability goals.

But as a stand alone system Powerhouse is not sustainable. Clean, yes. Far better than incineration, yes. But not sustainable under the definition.

Swazers

They are not lies at all.

You made a claim that Powerhouse technology is clean and sustainable. That's a very bold claim and one you really need to be able to back up with evidence if challenged.

It is patently not sustainable by any measure.

So, I'm asking you to prove how it can be when the feedstock is plastic and waste tyres etc. It's quite a simple ask and for what these bulletin boards are intended.

If anyone is a liar it is you John.

Swazers

Still unable to back up your claim that Powerhouse technology is sustainable.

You really should be able to otherwise you're just digging yourself deeper into a hole of lies and misinformation.

Swazers

You're still claiming and stating Powerhouse technology is sustainable?

You need to go back to the drawing board and do some real basic research if you stand by your post that feeding plastic and tyres into a system as a feedstock is sustainable.

Swazers

There's a difference between claiming Powerhouse technology is sustainable and that stating its use helps build a more sustainable world.

And you know it.

Why don't you just admit that you got it wrong or deliberately misled when you claimed Powerhouse technology is sustainable?

Swazers

The first point on your first post is incorrect:

You say Powerhouse has pioneered a solution that tackles the urgent need to generate clean and sustainable energy.

Powerhouse technology is not sustainable since its feedstock is derived from fossil fuel based plastic, tyres etc.

I haven't bothered to read any further into your posts, for if you can't get point one on post one correct there's no point.

Castle

You know I love you really.

I do hope that clown was meant for me, Castle. I've been feeling neglected as you haven't sent me one since I recommended you buy ITM Power at 34p.

Otto is Castle's other moniker.

It's German for wealth and prosperity. He once said his wife was half German.

I think it's the half with the hairy armpit.

Patxaran

Because the price that's down 11% is taking into account all of the differing bid and offer prices from all of the market makers. Your market maker is giving you just their price.

It's why some sells are reported as buys and vice versa.

Swazers

Don't read too much into into.

We're only reminding those who don't post just how useless you are at predicting the share price because there's nothing on the telly.

Swazers

I studied the Elliott wave principal back in the 1980s and applied it to my investment approach.

You may want to think about that lol.