StairwayTo wrote: (From another board):
Depends on the usage, but I would say the most realistic answer to that question is maybe. Or kinda.
For waste destruction, seems like they mostly work. System successfully installed and in use on the aircraft carrier, handful of other sales. On the other hand, they sold a system to the US Air Force (Hurlburt Field) that was quickly abandoned and auctioned off as military surplus. A handful of sales over more than a decade of being commercialized isn't great evidence.
For powders, it's a question mark. They probably "work" but are they better / more cost effective / more feasible than anything else out there? They claim to have the "highest quality metal powders at the lowest cost" but their sales & revenue are pretty much non-existent. If the tech was everything they claim, they wouldn't be able to produce fast enough to keep up with the demand. Not to mention the qualification that was anticipated in 2022 that is still pending in 2024.
Iron ore pelletization? The first 4 torches are still being trialed. Actually they may still be going through a site acceptance test BEFORE being trialed. So again, a maybe. Nobody knows. But the RISE testing didn't lead to anything, Vale decided to go 100% natural gas for their pelletizing operations and Rio Tinto doesn't mention plasma in their plans for 2024 in their Climate Change report.
Drossrite? Seems to work, they've had some sales. But does it work incredibly well? A handful of sales over 5 years, a large part of their largest order still unpaid and undelivered years later. Doesn't seem like anyone is blown away by it.
Aluminum furnaces? NOx issue, increased energy consumption. It will do the job but currently just replaces carbon footprint with NOx emissions. "Significant modifications" likely necessary to make it a viable option. So a maybe, but if a large operator has a choice between "significant modifications" to his furnaces PLUS the purchase of the torches PLUS increased energy consumption vs simply switching to a biofuel or less carbon-intensive fuel to reduce emissions.... And that's only in areas with electricity from renewable sources. On a traditional "dirty" power grid torches are currently not feasible, the increased electricity usage would negate any emissions reduction at the burner.
PFAS? They made one sale of torches for this usage, but that's it. PFAS is in the headlines around the globe, one of the greatest environmental challenges in the world today... if torches were a "for sure" solution there would be a lot more than one sale. It would be one of the largest science news stories of the decade.
Tunneling? Maybe. Never done before, still very experimental. I've outlined my concerns before, namely how are they going to get 10+ MW of electricity to a moving piece of equipment in a tunnel and how much will that electricity cost, and what's the carbon footprint of using that much electricity from a traditional power grid? Might technically work but can they get the tech to the point where it makes financial and environmental sense to do it?
I think plasma torches technically seem to or can do all these things. But are they the best choice to do them? Are they economically and environmentally the best choice? Easiest way to tell: where's the sales? Where's the revenue? Where are the contracts?