A presentation by Peter Stein (Stein Pyrolysis Ltd).

The Chairman welcomed Peter Stein and Nav Singh (Stein Pyrolysis) to the meeting and invited them to address the Panel. 

Members were given a brief presentation on Stein Pyrolysis.  The presentation covered the following:

• Peter Stein CV.
• Peter Stein.
• Stein Pyrolysis Technology.
• Pyrolysis System’s bad press.
• Video – technical detail.
• Key technology points.
• Gas condensing and oil forming with washing tower.
• Oil recovery.
• Tar recovery and re-use.
• Water treatment.
• Control system.
• Generation.
• Profitability.
• Options.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were noted:

Ø  That no combustion took place.

Ø  That pyrolysis was oxygen free.

Ø  That the bi-product was charcoal, a clean fuel, which was used to fuel the process.

Ø  That nearly all processes in the market today were batch processes which meant they were very high in capital, maintenance and high in smells.  It was noted that three types of these plants in Germany had been shut down due to the smell they had omitted.

Ø  The prototype had been built 12 years ago but that it had been a start and stop process as they had needed to learn how to operate the unit.

Ø  That this was a unique product for the UK although there was a similar product in California.

Ø  That all recycling needed to be separated – it was noted that Peter Stein used a wind shifter to do this and would be able to help out with that.

Ø  That they were virtually licensed in America – Peter Stein explained to the Panel that this was because the laws had recently changed.

Ø  That there was not a full scale operating unit in the UK that could be seen by the Panel.  It was noted that the unit in the video had been dissected after two years so it could be analysed. 

Ø  That Peter Stein did not have three years operational results behind him or £4million available to build a full unit.  It was noted that Peter Stein had been getting performance bonds in place and that the RBWM was the first Local Authority they had approached.

Ø  That there was a flare in the unit and that it was a fully enclosed system which could be seen from the air but not from the ground.  It was noted that no smells were present as it was a fully enclosed system.

Ø  That glass in recycling helped bind things together.

Ø  That up to 50% mix of plastics and other materials was OK, but not 100% plastics.

Ø  That it would take 12 months to manufacture the unit and a further 6 months to set it up, hence 18 months in total.

Ø  That the input would be 8000 hours (dry weight) which would be made up of 50% wet weight (50/60 tonnes) and half total waste.

Ø  That other size plants were available but it was felt that the 4 tonne plant was the most cost effective.

Ø  That worst case scenario would be that the Council could get 80% of the full contract value back along with being able to sell some assets.

Ø  That the product had been ready for the UK market for the last twelve months and that they were working with America, South Africa, Ireland and China but wanted a high profile UK project.

Martin Fry commented that he felt this was excellent technology and requested a copy of the presentation which the Clerk agreed to supply to him via email.

Peter Stein informed the Panel that if they would like anymore detail he would be happy to provide it and stated that this would be a very good flagship project (zero waste).

The Chairman thanked Peter Stein and Nav Singh for attending the meeting and presenting to the Panel.