London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
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.
Piltick, I have just read that recycling produces 70percent of the c02 that it takes to produce it in the first place. That's obviously the plastics that are easy to recycle.
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.
Piltick, having spoken to many green activists I have come to conclusions that recycling is like a religion to them. They are completely unaware that recycling produces co2 or at least a lot of them. They think that the world has a finite amount of resources and that you can simply frictionlessly without energy recycle matter without any impact on the ecosystem. It has to be made clear that all recycling has a cost and impact especially certain rubbers and plastic.
Another point may be that there is 200 million tonnes of plastic already dumped in landfill that could be rescued before it leaches into the environment.
Thanks for the discussion guys. I’m really interested in when when you take all the emotion out how much of a game changer is there. Disposing of 25 ton of plastic a day is great but the green argument would be don’t use plastic and make hydrogen from solar, proper green... I don’t think that’s feasible so DMG has a solid business model but they have to keep the environment at the forefront of the strategy imho
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!
Piltick, 7% of the gas generated is CO2. The syngas also consists of 44% methane, 19% ethylene/ethane, and 6% carbon monoxide. If burnt in a generator these substances will produce CO2.
Would these gases have arisen over time as a result of decomposition of the plastic? And if alternative sources of power had been used they could also have formed CO2.
Of course while you can calculate the amount of CO2 that a DMG saves from the hydrogen by multiplying the amount of CO2 in a litre of petrol by the number of litres in a ton of hydrogen. The question is how much CO2 is saved by the electricity generated by the DMG.
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.
Newboy58 - I disagree the more important question from the environmental point of view is how much CO2 it displaces. Iam struggling with the calculation can somebody assist with it but it is alot of CO2.
And forget about petrol, that will die out regardless.
I think we need to be really clear, how much co2 does it produce per day?
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.
I have just done a quick calculations if the 11,000 litres figure I quoted in my 09.48 post is correct then in a year a 25 tonne a day DMG unit will dislace 3,850,000 litres of petrol which is alot of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere.
Hi Piltick, the other point is that dmg uses less energy than recycling. This is a major selling point when talking to green lobbyists. Therefore far less co2 emissions are emitted!
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.
Piltick - reference your 22.54 post of yesterday I note what you say about writing to potential customers.In relation to CHAIN the following is the text of an email I have just sent them. If I get a reply I will let you know not expecting one.
I am writing to you in relation to a pending planning application for a 25 tonne per day waste from energy facility at Unit 10 on the Protos site in Cheshire. I understand you may be considering objecting to this application on environmental grounds. I would ask you to consider supporting this application on environmental grounds. As I understand it your objections are based on the harm caused by the release of harmful toxins. If you look at the video at the bottom of the page at www.powerhouseenergy.net this explains the technology that will be used at this facility. As you will see from this explanation no harmful toxins are released as a result of the process.
Even if you wish to discount this as company propaganda and I would accept that as a possible view I would observe that the process has been certified as technically viable by DNV GL a reputable third party verification company. The process has therefore been independently verified.
As a reputable organisation I am sure you would want to do your own checks. Also, you would wish to consider if the environmental costs of the process are outweighed by the environmental benefits of the process. With this process the facility would produce, using a power only model, around 58MW/h of electricity a day which is enough to power a small town. It can also be easily adapted to produce both power and hydrogen. In this case it would produce about 28MW/h of electricity a day and one tonne of hydrogen a day. Based on the figures in this article https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/motors/how-much-does-a-hydrogen-car-cost-to-run-a3595841.html a tonne of hydrogen would displace around eleven thousand litres of petrol a day. I would therefore argue that it would be more beneficial to the environment to have this facility which would reduce the use of fossil fuel burning production of electricity and reduce significantly the amount of car fumes entering the air reducing air pollution.
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”).
This tells us that the “Campaign Group” is the Cheshire Anti-Incinerator Network (CHAIN):
Within this site they have a page where they give their views on 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.
I think rsm s post perfectly illustrates the potential benefits of shareholders getting involved. Having Vince Cable on board could transform phe's outlook and far outweighs any potential backfiring. Paul Warwick is another great example who has put countless hours and contacts in phe's direction and is probably brainstorming as we speak. There are always risks in doing things but that does not mean one should do nothing.
Jabberba - I am going to respectfully disagree with your 7.38 post. Too many shareholders promoting the company runs the danger of giving the impression of a company that cannot market itself. While responding to tweets is one thing if you have a number of shareholders all writing to the same company about PHE this might backfire.
With the AGM next month we might want to canvass the BoD's vews on whether shareholder promotion should continue or whether for now PHE's profile has been raised enough bearing in mind that we do not have a commercial model up and running.
May be worse before it gets better but if the oil companies keep producing feedstock for PHE it can’t all be bad...
Of all the companies to benefit from dmg it is the plastics manufacturers and oil companies. If we have the solution then they can carry on doing what they have always done. And they have oodles of cash. What about the plastics federation. They have a new guy just starting who wants to make an impression. Has anyone got any spare time to engage with him/them? I don't write very good letters I'm afraid.! Not my forte.
Anyone else with social media skills to get more people involved? Again I'm of the wrong generation and clueless! Lots could be done by active shareholders. Good luck!
We need as many active shareholders as possible. Paul Warwick is doing great stuff for waste2tricity and PHE but we the more the merrier!
Well done! You got a lot further than I did with my MP! All I got was b u ll sh it. Good for you though. This absolutely is the right tech in the right space.
That’s right Tango1. Rsm61- It was at the Edinburgh presentation night which can be seen here: https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/video/powerhouse-energy-group-phe-david-ryan-ceo