topseeker wrote: Good Afternoon All,
The following is a ' dated ' piece of PYR's R & D work. Any disruptive tech of significance starts with critical R & D successful work, with a vision to address present/ future, commercial applications for large addressable markets. Proof of concept for the industrial world takes time, not just days, weeks or months. Years in the making to garner the attention of ' heavy hitters ' in those diverse industries. Keeping in mind the Attention is far more pronounced if the tech is truly Disruptive when large cost savings, strong GHG reductions, no adverse impact on the mfg process, ease of plasma torch installation, occurs. Well, ' the word on the street ' is spreading like a ' wildfire ' thanks in part too of PYR's continuous improvement approach over the years to satisfy the needs of diverse, demanding customers. Once a disruptive tech takes hold in the market place, be very very certain it will truly lead to a very disruptive, Epic, positive impact on the share price of that successful R & D firm called PYR. In so little time, we won't be speaking in terms of penny moves but in nickels, dimes, quarters & dollars re: PYR'S sp. That's progress for Ya when staying Long & being patient with PYR.
Let's keep in mind, 04/30/2020 was the last day to pick up shares @ approx. $ 0.50. Then later in the afternoon, news broke on plasma torches : https://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item?bid=Z-C%3aPYR-2898780&symbol=PYR®ion=C . So that same day, it hit a high of $ 0.72 & closed @ $ 0.68, with a total volume of 1.821M shares traded.Using a sp of $ 0.50, & the close of $ 0.71, as of Fri. 05/15, gives you a gain of 42% in 11 business days. That's just the beginning !! Sadly for the long term bank savings acct holders, their futures are looking @ interest rates, IMO, falling to zero. Well @ zero %, there is no income tax implications.
The following is an excerpt from a much earlier news release:
4th International Symposium on High-Temperature Metallurgical Processing Edited by: Tao Jiang, Jiann-YangHwang, Phillip J. Mackey, Onuralp Yucel, and Guifeng Zhou TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society), 2013 THERMAL PLASMA TORCHES FOR METALLURGICAL APPLICATIONS
ADVANTAGES OF PLASMA TORCHES OVER CONVENTIONAL BURNERS
As demonstrated previously, plasma torches offer high energy densities making them suitable in a wide variety of applications. In addition, they can be retrofitted in applications where fossil fuel burners are used to provide heat to a process, with the advantages of lower operating costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
With the current and forecasted increases in oil prices, there is growing interest in solutions that allow replacing the expensive fuel with more economic alternatives. In this context, plasma torches offer a very interesting option since they use electricity as a source of energy. Table 1 shows the operating costs of a 2 MW net fuel oil burner (bunker C or fuel oil no. 6) vs. a 2 MW net air plasma torch. As can be seen, there is a significant reduction in operating costs with the use of an air plasma torch. Considering applications such as iron ore pellet induration furnaces, cement kilns and various metallic ore roasters, which usually include multiple burners and sometimes more than 100 burners per plant, the costs savings becomes even more interesting.
Table 1 - Operating costs of a 2 MW net bunker C burner vs. an air plasma torch Fuel Oil Cost (S0.5/L) Electricity Cost ($0.03/kWh) Replacement Parts Cost Total %
Reduction Fuel Oil Burner $ 923,000 $ 9,000 $ 0 $ 932,000
Plasma Torch $0 $600,000 $38,000 $638,000%
Reduction 32%
Although the use of a plasma torch increases the global electricity cost, it reduces the electrical power required by the off-gas treatment system (exhaust fans, scrubbers, particulate filters) because the off-gas flow rate is much lower than with a burner. Indeed, there is about an 80% off-gas flow rate reduction when using a plasma torch instead of a burner. Not only does this reduce operating costs of the off-gas treatment system in existing plants, it also reduces the capital cost for future plants because a smaller and less complex off-gas treatment system can be purchased.
In addition to the important costs incurred by the operation of a fuel oil burner, there is also a large amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) that is emitted due to the combustion of non renewable fossil fuel. With the increasing concerns towards the emission of GHG and the establishment of emissions trading programs (cap-and-trade) all over the world, solutions that also allow the reduction of GHG emissions are of particular interest. Depending on how it is produced, the use of electricity as a source of energy, as is the case for plasma torches, represents a great potential to reduce GHG emissions. While a bunker C fuel oil burner emits about 115 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents (CC^e) per gigajoule of net energy considering the combustion of the fuel as well as its extraction, production and distribution, a plasma torch powered with electricity generated by hydropower emits only about 1 kg C02e/GJ. Therefore, for a 2 MW plasma torch retrofitted in place of a burner, this would lead to yearly reductions of more than 7,000 metric tonnes of C02e. Again, considering there can be more than 100 of these burners per plant, the GHG reductions are even more interesting.
Well, I must admit the #s of burners to be replaced by plasma torches is ...... EPIC ...... for so many diverse industries.
Best wishes All, good health,
Good Fortune,
Topseeker