Reply to same.
J, you say it make H2. You didn't see it do it cheaply. There are lots of ways to make it. And ways that cost 1/4 the of HYVR reactor materials cost are considered too expensive.
I pay no attention to what a company says off the record. This company is on the record in whitepaper saying that the cost to produce H2 using their system is 6 cents per foot, and I believe them. That's very expensive, 5X the cost of electrolysis, or about $1.40 per kWh if you use the H2 to make electricity. J said last week that recycling the materials could pay for the whole thing. What does the company say in the on the record filing J posted yesterday? That the recycling could reduce the cost by up to 25%. That would make it 4X as expensive as electrolysis. That's still worthless technology. I believe the company's on the record statements, J claims not to.
J, if you really believe that recycling pays for the whole thing, why don't you buy a reactor. (Just think of the shock to the next quarter filing if this company were to have a line for operating revenue!) Hook it up to some fuel cells and an inverter. Use net metering to sell power to the grid. You will make 5-20 cents per kWh on the power you sell to the electric company, and pay $1.40 for the materials. But you think the recycling more than pays for the materials. So in your view, what would happen is that men in gloves and goggles will come gather up the wet residue from your reactor and leave you with the dry chemicals. They leave you a little extra money or at least they charge you less than you made selling electricity because to them, the easiest way to add those chemicals to the water is to send them to your house. I bet there would be a lot of interest in making a documentary about your experience.
I repeat for anyone here who thinks the HYVR technology produces H2 economically, when including all the costs and profits of recycling the waste should buy one and use it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
