RE:RE:RE:2,500 cement plants outside of China. Also, there is a cost savings to these company's beyond environmental when replacing fossil fuel. There is a lot of auxiliary equipment required when burning fuel. Depending on the fuel being burned it could require heating prior to reaching the burner, huge fuel holding tanks maintenance, aux equipment maintenance, extra electricity to run aux. equipment and extra personnel to run and maintain said equipment. There is also the possibly of extra insurance premiums due to increased risk of fire or spill. The cost of procuring fuel along with fuel fluctuating costs causing a fluctuating bottom line. I've been in a plant before and the plant can be quite cramped, removing all this aux equipment's footprint must be a bonus bonus to the facility. Isn't this second phase of the current ongoing modeling focusing on the added benifets to the process ? I think they have determined that there are no adverse effects to the product and the equipment. It may be proven that company "A"can benefit from increased production or have a better quality product when converting to torches. It certainly sounds that the price is agreed on or mutually agreed that it is in the ballpark or Peter wouldn't be commenting on it, espically if it was a point of contention.
Uncleron wrote:
allinorbust, the cost of a torch is between $3 - $4 MM. The only $1.5 # is billions. There is absolutley no way that Peter has to incentivize the sale of torches. It would be stupid not to buy PyroGenesis torches, and the smelters know this , that's the advantage Peter has. A $2 $3 $4 billion investment will be paid back quickly. The reduction in GHG taxes will cover this cost....uncleron is always right!... Cheers.