Chairman's Statement

“If the world continues transitioning from fossil fuels via EVs, wind and solar, this cannot stop climate change or any resulting environmental disasters.

Even the most wildly optimistic forecasts assumes 1 billion electric vehicles and 50% green electricity and heat from wind and solar by 2040.

That leaves 900 million engines running on fossil fuels and 50% of heat and electricity being generated by coal, oil and fossil gas or its derivative blue hydrogen.

Rapidly replacing fossil fuels with indoor biofuel plus green hydrogen, and then quickly facilitating a hydrogen economy, will actually help reverse climate change, not just marginally slow it.

We have a practical viable plan to eliminate fossil energy in transport, industry and food production rather than tinkering around the edge of the problem with energy sources that rely on there being no climate change.

GGT has designed the world’s first instant local self powered modular vertical farm using accelerated hydroponics and offered with 5 choices of outputs:
• Food
• Ethanol
• Biodiesel
• Hydrogen
• Electricity

We believe we can produce very affordable food, fuel at around GBP 0.55 (55 pence) per gallon, low cost compressed hydrogen and electricity at GBP 0.02 (2 pence) per kWh, all while absorbing more CO2 during production than is emitted when the final products are used.

This comes in a launch-to investor-exit food and energy solution, that works utilising virtually unchanged existing global infrastructure and cost parameters.

These patentable and patent-applied-for processes and products, also offer the ability to partly reverse climate change and the means to feed the disadvantaged today and later when climate disasters destroy crops.

It offers the real prospect of local energy and food security with stable pricing and without dependence on any external country supply.

Unlike other new-tech “processes”, we propose selling commoditised ‘plug and play’ self-powered turnkey food farms, fuel farms and small power stations to be used for local production in the place where the food is consumed or the energy used. Units can be mass produced and erected in days. This includes a way to seamlessly transition to hydrogen production and distribution for transport, industry, food production and the home.

Our proposal exploits novel and proven accelerated growth vertical hydroponics (AGVH) indoor growth systems for food crops and fuel crops. It then uses enzymatic systems to create fuels, uses biofuel and hydrogen to create electricity and has a range of processes to make each unit self powered and independent.

Units are intended to be funded with 10 year renewable leases part financed by growing a percentage of very high value crops. No new production plants are required to build units as third parties produce components for final containerisation. Fast global market penetration will be via 7 regional franchises.

Why the world needs this now.

A small number of countries control the supply of gas and fossil fuel and so are able control prices. In 2023 more than 60% of oil comes from just 10 countries. In a small number of cases, this can create a licence for actions that would not be possible if they did not have a strangle hold on energy. Transitioning from fossil fuels to biofuels and then hydrogen limits the effect of exchanging oil and gas “cartels” for an even smaller cadre of players controlling EVs, wind and solar.

Countries with limited renewable energy resources are at a disadvantage when it comes to development, and in one or two cases have to look at military protection of their supply lines from potential future aggression. Others are forced to limit their response to otherwise undesirable actions, so as to preserve energy supplies.

Community level production of energy at a fixed price would rebalance the geopolitical map in a positive way.

Exchanging control by the fossil club for control by the wind, solar and EV even smaller club, makes little sense, when there is no reason to only use this route.

GGT can accelerate the rate of transition away from fossil oil and fossil gas and can achieve this painlessly and on a large scale.

Climate change where it relates to food is also a threat. Over 8 billion people live on our planet and that could rise to 10 billion within 30 years. Many of those people face an existential threat from environmental disasters which could lead to mass desperation-migration.

That is because the intergovernmental action plan for climate change is only capable of keeping temperature rises between 2° to 2.7° Celsius, as the manmade CO2 reduction programme is limited. There is no creditable proposals to extract CO2 from the atmosphere or plan to rebalance ocean and forestry damage or deal with catastrophic damage to nature.

In fact this limited approved ‘target’ is almost guaranteed to lead to devastating levels of food poverty, destructive weather events, drought, wildfires and rising seas with island nation states and vast areas of land under water within the lifetimes of people alive today.

Prior to our pragmatic solution, people have been told that reducing environmental disaster involved sacrifice, major changes to the way people live and high costs. This proposal is brutally honest in recognising that appeals for substantial sacrifices to heal the planet, have not succeeded. It also recognises that the poorest half of the planet’s population are unlikely to be able to afford current high-cost conventional sustainable ideas.

We believe there is a need to do more than just minimise and delay disaster. We propose introducing commercially attractive sustainable global fixes which could begin reversing climate change. Thousands of scientists believe the world needs to reverse environmental “ecocide” and humanitarians believe we need a fairer new form of food production all within 10-15 years.

Today, even before land is drowned and drought rages, 800 million people struggle to find food. Every 24 hours as many as 30,000 children die from starvation, lack of water or poisoned water. That will rise as climate change and industrial farming practises destroys ever decreasing farmland. Agriculture accounts for one third of manmade CO2 production. Industrial farming practises promised increased food output but have made farmland barren and dependant on chemical fertiliser. This is without animal cruelty associated with caged animal husbandry. 60% of agricultural land provides food for farm animals or for grazing and 10 million hectares of biodiverse forests are cut down each year for extra farmland. Our indoor self powered low cost food units can grow fish, pulses, vegetables, salads and fruit and high value crops to fund the units using only 10% of the water needed for conventional farming.

The threat from food poverty and drought (only a reducing 0.25% of the earth’s water can be drunk or used for farming), is not only to those who starve.

Without our farms, more prosperous countries will face hundreds of millions of hostile people with ‘nothing left to lose’, realising that mass migration is their only hope. Some might argue that ‘desperation migration’ has already begun.

CO2 in the atmosphere degrades very slowly, so even if the international community agreed a total worldwide ban on all fossil fuels, industrial farming, deforestation and harmful manufacturing, it would be at least 200 years before there would be a detectable reduction in the amount of excess CO2.

This biotech solution takes in more CO2 during the production phase than is released into the atmosphere when it is used to produce liquid fuel and to a lesser degree electricity.

This means there would be a net reduction in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere whenever GGT energy is used.

The primary chosen sources of alternative energy rely on stable weather patterns and there being no climate change. Wind generators stop turning if wind speeds are too high, too low or if climate change negatively alters wind patterns, as is happening. For example in September 2021, UK wind farms lost 80% of their output because of wind reductions. Meanwhile increased cloud cover and potential negative effects of weather changes, limits the value of solar panels that can only produce maximum power in daylight and within reasonable temperature ranges! Both sources are also often remote from where their electricity is needed.

This document proposes using cutting edge biotech solutions capable of decarbonising key polluting energy processes by producing;
• locally produced cheap fixed price sustainable electricity
• affordable clean indoor grown fixed price biofuel for countries that do not wish to electrify
• green sources of industrial energy and in particular heat
• sustainable hydrogen and compression infrastructure

All this is achieved in a way that will be accepted by consumers as there is no financial or behavioural sacrifice.

There is also an advanced GGT process which converts our biomass waste, and any other available organic waste, to energy to help run the units. We can also convert growth troughs to generate hydrogen via 3D printed fuel cells for the balance of power needed to self power each farm.

We propose the direct replacement of all fossil fuel with affordable pollution-free green liquid fuels for countries that retain liquid fuel engines. The production process for pollutant-free biodiesel and generator-electricity is based on the same modular vertical farm unit. This allows EVs to be greener by using reliable green electricity sources including our hydrogen. Using local biofuel/hydrogen hybrids plus advanced ICE transport or Asian controlled electric transport is then a matter of personal or political choice.

Biofuel/H2 combustion engines (including hybrids) will then give the world a chance to reduce the current rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is approximately 418 parts per million and rising (it should be 280). EVs cannot reduce the amount of manmade CO2 being added to the atmosphere, unless their power source is 100% sustainable electricity.

Sustainable electricity and biofuel at low prices allows Governments to raise equitable taxes on all energy. The capital costs and consumables are funded by a lease over 10 years or simply amortised.

For the first time industry will be able to produce its own energy cheaply enough to manufacture commodities such as steel and cement using green electricity. Currently conventional methods of producing these two commodities create 50% of industrial CO2.

If battery technology and charging improves and electric vehicle costs fall and poorer people use electric transport around 10% of all electricity would be used for EVs. This is the power used for the internet, mobile phones and social media. So people will have to make a choice. But to be green all energy would need to be sustainable, as EVs can’t select which source they rely on. A better solution for the planet is to transition to hydrogen ICEs and hybrids via biofuel.

Our hope would also be that society would see CO2 being reduced without personal pain, and so would have time to consider the other big issue of the destruction of nature.

Deforestation is particularly damaging as those forests are not only home to interdependent species the earth and humans depend on, but trees absorb CO2 and cool the ambient temperature around the forests. At present governments are not planning to replace lost forests globally and certainly not by 2050. 11,700 years ago the earth’s weather patterns stabilised into what is known as the Holocene period with effective reflective greenhouse gasses and CO2 regulated by forests and the oceans. It has taken man a mere 10,000 years to destroy 50% of all the earth’s CO2-absorbing forests and habitats and kill 60% of all the species on earth, which in turn reduces the ability of nature to absorb manmade CO2. Humans have managed to reduce the number of trees and plants from two million, million, million tonnes of green CO2 absorbing biomass to half that amount. Planting twigs and pretending that this replaces mature trees and plants is delusional. Most of this change from stable weather to climate change has happened in the last 300 years.

Developing countries want affordable electricity and by 2050 demand will have increased by between 30-50%, which is why increased conventional alternative energy sources only reduce dependency on fossil.

Looking at just one country, China, we see the source of 27% of global emissions of C02, but a desire to halve its output of CO2 by 2050 and a target of being net carbon neutral by 2060. Using our technology, this single ‘customer’ could be significantly reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere within 10 years.

That would involve China manufacturing our fuel and electricity units first for themselves, swapping over to green fuel, powering coal fired power stations with biocrude and oil rich bio-coal, and using green electricity for every kind of heating, including industrial processes. The energy plan for China makes financial sense (saving over £200 billion on annual energy imports alone) and means China would be energy secure with all energy requirements produced within their borders.

Our first development work started with faster plant/tree growth technology developed over 17 years by scientists, engineers and inventors in the UK and the USA.

The same process was then used to grow modified sugar rich plant species and micro-algae with lipids (oil) under cover. These algae and sugar rich “plants” are used to make sustainable biofuel replacements for fossil-based fuels. Ours are affordable, clean (no sulphur or particulates especially in diesel) and can be produced where the fuel is used. By growing indoors in troughs on any type of unused land, this removes the argument against agricultural biofuels.

Parallel fuel farms are built to create electricity in sustainable mini power stations, by using our clean biofuel to run generators (generator exhaust CO2 can help growth) or hydrogen plus biowaste syngas to run fuel cells, so providing localised power for communities and industrial processes. We can match local demand and where required, change over the liquid fuel farms to create electricity or hydrogen.

Local ‘distributed’ fuel, hydrogen and electricity production is also easier to protect from the electronic warfare that can destroy an economy without a single conventional weapon being fired.

This proposal would not work if it required an investor to raise billions. Instead, the team has devised a franchise model where the technology is licenced to regional partners in exchange for an upfront licence fee based on agreed sales and a majority of profits from sales. Franchisees do not have to build factories as all parts for every unit are supplied by third party expert suppliers and GGT. The franchisee merely organises the assembly of parts at existing distributor warehouses, when it has orders. This pragmatic viable finance and manufacturing plan will deliver the technologies globally and simultaneously.

We believe the franchise approach means we turn potential competitors into partners especially if we utilise existing retail infrastructure. We protect intellectual property by offering pre-identified upgrades to the technology (providing partners/customers honour contracts), conventional patenting and “novel” protections.

An agreed proportion of net dividends will be set aside by existing shareholders to fund further biotech solutions which have the potential to accelerate the reversal of climate change, but not make the kind of returns we target for investors. Funds will also help feed poorer people who have no money for our food units. So, we intend to be a company with a conscience.

What is on offer here is an uncompromising radical set of affordable solutions that can begin to reverse climate change and food poverty starting in as little as 18 months.

In the long term the central company’s expenditure is focussed on research, development, prototype production, training, delivery of consumables, upgrades and support. The franchisee oversees the assembly of the units via sub-contractors and sells the machines in their region or can sell food, fuel or electricity direct at wholesale or retail level.

It is important to note that it is not commercially sensible, to give away every process secret even in a limited circulation document. However, there is sufficient information to explain how the processes and the plan work.”