ccs +80% v's coldry +5% , page-5

Sorry maxisweeney, I don't really understand your post.

I wasn't actually trying to make a point but perhaps this goes a way to explaining why, after being in existence now for 26 years, Coldry is yet to recieve any significant financial interest.
If there are cheaper and far more effective techniques and technologies for reducing carbon emissions, the current sp and lack of interest isn't surprising.
I have no doubt of the effectiveness of Coldry in reducing moisture content, its tried and tested, but if it can only deliver 5%-15% reduction of emissions, why go to all the expense?

If esi had a way of transporting their BCE pellets from the LV, there exists an enormous market for the product but...not yet.
Better still if there was a coal resource which had existing rail nearby... or if the pellets could be slurried perhaps... or if the technique wasn't so restricted in where it can be located...

Sorry I couldn't answer your question.

Research builds knowledge and knowledge builds understanding.