Member Info for Piltick

Demand for EVs seems to be on the increase. We need to get cheap hydrogen out there fast before all cars are EV and our old diesel power stations go into melt-down.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4271693-teslas-model-3-demand-high?ifp=0

Not that I'm being alarmist, of course!

Depressing, init!

Excellent article. Thanks for the link BumbleB.

Certainly planning permission doesn't depend upon funding being available, and my recollection is that it lasts five years. But I'm sure that they won't be holding back on their quest for funding, indeed I certainly hope not! They need to get that sorted as quickly as possible so that there is no delay in getting stated on the site once they get the planning permission.

Two further bits from the World Waste to Energy Summit in May that I omitted from my previous post:

- EY exploring pipeline of project funding for UK.
- Agreements for power and plastics in place

So I gather that Ernst & Young are looking for the funding on behalf of W2T.

I do wonder if PHE would be better to raise £7M themselves, or to establish a JV and seek the funding either by a placing or part placing, part open offer, and part loan. There's more than one way to raise project funding, and I'm not sure if we're making any progress with the current arrangement.

Yes stokey, and as I understand it the funding for the first unit is also in the hands of W2T.

At the World Waste to Energy Summit in May, I believe the David Ryan said:

Planning and permit and FEED to follow next month (i.e. June)
Planning permission expected in September

So we might get confirmation at the end of this month or early next month that the planning application has been submitted.

I wasn't aware of that jabber, but not surprised. So if we recycle everything it's hardly going to save the planet! It's amazing how people get fixated on things without understanding the overall consequences.

Absolutely right jabberba on all counts. The difficult bit is persuading them that they are wrong, or in other words educating them, especially regarding the effects of PHE's technology.

I became of their obsession with recycling as I was going through their web sites. It seems that they take no account of non-recyclable waste plastic, i.e. contaminated plastic, which cannot be recycled, and that it is non-recyclable plastic that PHE will be using as feedstock. It is very important that we get that message across in a clear manner.

Perhaps they need to be reminded that the reason that so much plastic is being returned from Malaysia is because we have sent them thousands of tons of non-recyclable material, which we will now presumably have to put into landfill. Surely it would be so much better to use that as feedstock for PHE's DMG systems.

And then there is the question that you raise, and for which I don't have an answer, which is how much CO2 is created by recycling as opposed to processing in a DMG unit to produce electricity and/or hydrogen.

Have they all retreated back into their bunkers again after the AGM?

It certainly does get rather complicated if we try to compare the total CO2 from the entire DMG process, including the generation of electricity and hydrogen, compared to the CO2 that would be created by using alternative means. Probably best if we leave that to David Ryan and his team to answer!

Hi Newboy, I think we have to be very careful with how we put this. First, the gasification process itself doesn't produce any CO2, the CO2 only arises when the syngas is burned as a fuel to generate electricity. So if the bulk of the syngas is being used to generate hydrogen, then it is only the part of the syngas that is left over and is used to generate electricity that will result in CO2 being produced.

I seem to recall KA saying that the DGM unit would produce 1 ton of CO2 per day when producing hydrogen, whereas in order to produce the same quantity of hydrogen from natural gas would produce 16 tons of CO2. But this is something that we would have to check before saying anything to the green lobbyists.

It is also important not just to say how much CO2 is produced, because then the would say oh yes, so it produces CO2, then it is not environmentally friendly. We must be able to show how much CO2 it saves compared with other processes.

Thanks jabber and stokey, that's another two points to state clearly when communicating with the "greens". We have to be careful to highlight the issues that we know are dear to their hearts, and not bother with other matters that they're unlikely to be interested in.

Thanks redleader1 and stokey for making contact with the "green" organisations. I doubt if we will get a response from any of them, but it's worth a try.

It will not be easy to persuade these people that the PHE DMG system is positive for the environment and should therefore be supported by environmentalists. It seems to me that their initial instinct is to object to things, oppose it and stop it, rather than to support something.

When writing to, or contacting any of the environmentalist groups, I think it is important to make clear the following points:
- The DMG technology is not incineration, it is gasification.
- It does not release smoke or harmful emissions into the atmosphere.
- Initially these systems will be using non-recyclable plastics as feedstock. They will not be processing anything that is recyclable.
- In addition to generating electricity the DMG system can produce hydrogen for use as a vehicle fuel in hydrogen/EV vehicles, thereby replacing fossil fuels.
- When used to produce hydrogen, the DMG system will produce one sixteenth of the CO2 that would be produced using the standard methane reformation process for the manufacture hydrogen.

Another point about this system is that it is converting waste into a form of diesel, which when burned is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, moreso than PHE's DMG system.

Just refreshing my memory by re-reading RNS 29 May:
- Key meetings with current / prospective Chinese off-take and project finance partners are scheduled for early June.
- A graphite resource update is underway, and targeted to complete by end-June 2019
- Rigorous testing of ground water suitability for general use at the mine and in the processing circuit is nearing finalisation.

I’m not convinced that now is the best time for PHE shareholders to get involved with potential customers trying to “sell” the PHE DMG technology, mainly because it would be much better to wait until PHE has a full-scale unit up and running, then we’d have a much better story to tell. And in any case, surely that ought to be left to the management and staff of the company (or W2T).

Nevertheless, talking to MPs, government departments and local governments is a good idea in my view, because it is important to make those people aware of what PHE’s DMG system will do for the plastics problem, and for the environment.

But even more important right now, I believe, is the need to get the message across clearly to environmentalists and “green” organisations, because it seems to me that those people and organisations have the ear of the government and local authorities. Furthermore, those organisations have the ability to influence how protest groups regard a particular technology or process, and whether they will support or oppose it.

So, take for example UKWIN (UK Without Incinerators). On their web site they have a page listing incinerators in the UK. Guess what - yes, PHE’s forthcoming construction at Protos is on the list (look under “North West”).
http://ukwin.org.uk/resources/table/#Region6

This tells us that the “Campaign Group” is the Cheshire Anti-Incinerator Network (CHAIN):
http://www.anti-incinerator.org.uk

Within this site they have a page where they give their views on EfW:
http://www.anti-incinerator.org.uk/the-waste-debate/energy-from-waste-efw/

It seems that their main objections to incineration (and hence to PHE’s DMG technology, because they regard gasification the same as incineration) is:
- the waste they burn should be recycled.
- It wastes valuable natural resources and produces a toxic mix of chemicals and a residue of highly toxic ash that needs to be treated and disposed of as hazardous waste.
I have sent an email to their Chairman, Brian Cartwright, explaining i) that the DMG unit will only be using non-recyclable plastic as feedstock, and II) there are no toxic fumes from the gasification process, and the small amount of residue is not hazardous and can be landfilled without the need for further treatment.

I have suggested to him that as environmentalists I would expect his organisation to be supporting this technology rather than opposing it.

There are many “green” organisations that PHE needs to get “on-side”, but for the first DMG unit at Protos, CHAIN is the most important one because they are the people who will be heading up any objections and opposition to the plant. The more of us who can try to educate them the better.

It's only 1.37% of the total shares in issue, and at a premium price so I don't think we need to be too concerned about it.

Trouble is, the environmentalists haven't really caught on yet. They still regard oxo-biodegradable as just another form of degradable that ends up as micro-plastic particles. It's very difficult to get them to change their minds on anything, and all they want to do is to bang on about recycling or stopping using plastic.

This is absolutely diabolical!