Post by
Namazon on Nov 27, 2020 12:10am
Plasma vs Fossil Fule Torches (from Agoracom)
Dear Moi,
With respect to Plasma being a "dryer" heat than fossil fuel burners:
Bingo! The client may be able to achieve either a dryer pellet or produce more pellets at the same water content. Either way, there is a very real potential for the torch to "pay for itself" ... game changer!
In my opinion, this was the most compelling reason why PYR only wanted to sell 1 torch... they don't know the results yet. The torch will work fine and absolutely keep up with the fossil fuel burners... but PYR needs to know if there is any kind of "pellet production boost".
If there is... the value (and price) of a torch goes way up, and the whole concept becomes a no brainer for all Clients to change every torch out there. $$$
Best regards,
Tim in Vancouver
Comment by
NSPfacts on Nov 27, 2020 12:34am
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by
poppagasket on Nov 27, 2020 11:24am
I don't know enough about the dryness of pellets, but I believe this one prototype will one way or another enable PYR to charge clients at $3.5+ million per torch, and the client will be happy to pay. that's why Peter never signed the purchase agreements in his in-box according to the interview.