Good Morning to all.
OK Venator here is my take on this recent Radio-Canada report on PYR plasma torch.
First, I warn you : dont shoot the messenger!
I have decades of experience  with high temp processes, including different plasma/arc torches technologies, and metallurgical experience at industrial scale. I mention this, because it takes more than a good  understanding of french to really conprehend this report and come up with a realistic evaluation ( contrary to too many superficial  biased and naive " pseudo analysis" polluting this board).
1- RC report is well balanced, presenting both sides of the story, first from PYR, then from a metallurgy prof from Ecole Polytechnique of Mtl. ( sory, forgot his name).
2- Pyr indicates that they are still tuning their 1 MW system in order to reduce erosion and incease the life of the consommables ( anode end cathode electrodes). No mention of typical electrode life. 
3-The key factor to reach long electrode life is to stabilize the arc  attatchment, without burning the electrodes. They are doing this by relying on an air vortex. ( no EM field contrary to other techno. ) Also, they run the torch with a mix of air and nitrogen?. Even use helium for start-up?( why?). 
4- PYR mention that they are working on development of higher power unit.> 1MW.

My take on this: PYR is at early stage of development of high power units. 1 MW is nice, but far from other systems and techgno running at much higher power at industrial scale. It seems, from their presentation, that they have not yet reached the "plug and play" conditions required for large scale trouble free  industrial power applications. ( Could  this explain their need to publicised their FAT ?).

Ecole Poly report presents the other side of the coin.

1- First, and foremost, using electricity ( the highest quality form of energy) instead of fossil fuel just for heating and reduce CO2 generation makes only sense if you use renewable form of electricity. ( lets not forget that most electricity in the world ( >80%) is generating by burning coal /fuel! Under those conditions, there is no real CO2 net advantage. Electricity must be used first used for arc reduction/electrolysis.
2- They replacement of conv gaz burners by plasma torch  represents a major step in term of not only costs but maintenance, skills, and electrical power requirements. Plus the complex water cooling requirement for the torch, and high compressed gaz, and control systems requiring higher skills maintenance. 
3- Expect that this replacement will be done in a very prudent and gradual mode. Most likely by adopting a dual mode system ( gaz and electric) to test the concept at real scale . With the possibility of modulating the energy vs the price/availability) throughout the year. Most industrial processes MUST run on continuous basis. This explain the need for gradual transition.
4- Finally,  the most important criteria of the iron pelletization process is the quality of the material which must be maintained without any concession possible. What are the risks of degrading the product quality. ( like nitride formation for example, especially with nitrogen plasma???).  This has to be tested at all stages of manufacturing, down to final steel product.
This require time and cannot be simulated on computers.

MY Concl: This whole thing makes some sense, if , when and where many conditions will be  reached. 
Be patient, and dont be naive by listening only to biased stortytellers!
GLTA longs.
Raph2