Thanks for confirming @zmickyzee1 I agree, the payback period...

Thanks for confirming @zmickyzee1 I agree, the payback period seems very good indeed. I also like the fact that RLT is not getting involved with the nitty-gritty conversion of the product. As Stefano rightly said in his interview Renergen sells LNG they do not sell technology.

Although maybe it's just my investor head thinking here... But I do believe we may be missing a trick. Making it open-source rather than selling the rights or patenting the technology, rather than making it open source. I get the fact it will help save the planet and it will massively help larger companies like Transnet, Chep, and Interlogix meet their ever-growing green demands. plus lowering C02 is always a win, win for everyone.

I just feel from a commercial perspective there is money to be made along the way then we should certainly not write it off. We can always use the profits to plant those new trees Have a look at Stefano's comments below

"is it something you patent or are you leaning more towards open source?"
"completely open-source um you know it's one of these things that we sell gas we don't sell technology our approach on this has been yes we may have developed it but the fact is that this is one of those technologies that really has the ability to have a major benefit to the planet and so our rationale on this was share it with everyone let everyone use it and inadvertently the more people that start to use it the more we'll see a shift of people using trucks and allergy than diesel which at the end of the day is good for us"

Maybe, I am barking up the wrong tree here and the focus should be on the larger more lucrative side of the business. Although I would hate for us to miss a trick along the way. What are other peoples thoughts on this? Maybe the technology is simply too hard to patent?

I just think if the savings are as good as stated then the big players will be jumping all over this technology whether there is a cost or not?