Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (15128)	12/12/2011 10:52:44 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

BTW, none of the 3 recent tests were performed at a load rate of twice the permitted rate of 2000lbs/hr. It seems that numbers and language are both tossed around pretty loosely here. loanranger Share Monday, December 12, 2011 10:50:07 AM Re: Steady_T post# 147124 Post # of 147157 "So you are saying that the capital costs to process the RKT plastic just dropped by 1/2 ?" Again it is suggested that the final capital cost of the pre-melt system is ZERO after certain variously described changes have been implemented. Apparently actual numbers aren't needed to reach that conclusion. Here's what the company said: Q2:………… During the second quarter of 2011 the Company designed and engineered a premelt loader for the Plastic2Oil processor to eliminate handling, shredding, and bagging of waste plastic. During the modularization of the processor, the CEO was able to eliminate the off gas compression system in favor of a simplified low-cost off gas handling rack (4’ x 4’ x 4’) for better control and at 1/5 of the cost. The cost savings through modularization has been used to offset the cost of the premelt loader. Q3:…………. The premelt system operates from the waste heat of the original P2O reactor system and has the ability to separate the comingled metals from the plastic.……… "The cost savings through modularization has been used to offset the cost of the premelt loader." I asked "Does the above statement mean that the total cost of the premelt was offset by "The cost savings through modularization", as your having[sic] theory implies?" The answer that I received was: "the premelt is essentially free because it's a substitute for e gas compression system. Since they are able to use excess gas for use on the premelt they don't need to compress the gas and the premelt acts as a replacement for it." Your answer seems different: "the pre-melt cost is being covered by eliminating the gas compression and storage system. That subsystem has been replaced by a single high volume low pressure pump. The cost differential covers the pre-melt." "Actually if you had been closely reading the company released information you would be aware that the pre-melt cost is being covered by eliminating the gas compression and storage system." That's funny. I'm usually accused of reading things like this too closely. And indeed, I'm compelled to by the propensity of some people to take the company's actual statements and present their own interpretations of them as fact. Like this: Per JBI: "The cost savings through modularization has been used to offset the cost of the premelt loader." Per poster R: "the premelt is essentially free because it's a substitute for e gas compression system." Per you: "the pre-melt cost is being covered by eliminating the gas compression and storage system. That subsystem has been replaced by a single high volume low pressure pump. The cost differential covers the pre-melt." By "closely reading the company released information" I came to a different conclusion than either of yours. I don't KNOW what the company meant by "offsetting" the cost, but I wouldn't be too quick to assume that they meant that either of the changes described absorbed the cost of the pre-melt entirely. In fact, not only is that not clear from the company's statement, but it would be a heckuva coincidence. BTW, none of the 3 recent tests were performed at a load rate of twice the permitted rate of 2000lbs/hr. It seems that numbers and language are both tossed around pretty loosely here. siliconinvestor.com Steady_T Monday, December 12, 2011 12:27:51 AM Re: loanranger post# 147105 Post # of 147157 Actually if you had been closely reading the company released information you would be aware that the pre-melt cost is being covered by eliminating the gas compression and storage system. That subsystem has been replaced by a single high volume low pressure pump. The cost differential covers the pre-melt. I suspect that there have been other changes that have a positive impact on the price structure. siliconinvestor.com

To: scion who wrote (15128)	12/12/2011 12:35:34 PM
From: PaperProphet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

Re:<"I to not read "feed" rate to mean "throughput" rate. I think in terms of feed rates and output rates."? I personally don't think that fear of Techisbest's is founded. The input mass of the feedstock will equal the output mass of the products. If he's specifically looking for the liquid output, even if it's only half then it's still not far enough off to be the actual sword which slays the JBI 'juggernaut'. Now the composition or the usefulness of the output--that's always been in question. Mr. Bordynuik describes it as "fuel" which is vague enough to be accurate but not a useful description. Since the input plastic burns, the output will also burn. Plastic feedstock is also "fuel" but that doesn't describe it's usefulness as an actual fuel either--unless only to provide heat.