Chairman's Statement

“If the world continues transitioning from fossil fuels primarily via EVs, wind, hydrogen and solar, this cannot stop any environmental disasters caused by environmental or other problems.

The real numbers just do not add up.

By 2035 approximately 1 billion vehicles and generators running on liquid fuels will almost certainly remain.

Coal, fossil gas, blue hydrogen, biomass made from trees and other fossil fuels create around 60 percent of global electricity.

Increasing demand for electricity from Data Centres, EVs and developing nations will outstrip power production by new alternative energy from sources such as wind and solar, and there will be blackouts and possible energy rationing.

Countries that transition to alternative energy without increasing peak generation capacity, are likely to be the first to see energy shortages. Focusing on sources such as hydrogen when there is minimal infrastructure, has the same effect.

Yet it does not have to be this way.

8 billion tonnes of coal is burnt every year and this is a problem if CO2 is a ‘criminal’ gas.

34% of so called sustainable alternative heat and electricity production comes from biomass which includes hundreds of millions of mature virgin trees cut down and often replaced with tiny saplings, so they can be called sustainable.

There are currently:
2,400 coal fired power stations
3,100 steel and cement furnaces
1,000,000+ small furnaces/kilns
4,500 woodchip/tree power stations and combined heat and power units
2.2 billion people burn trees and coal for heat or cooking

If coal and solid biomass was replaced with identically performing synthetic coal and synthetic woodchip it would complement declining coal and gas usage and slowly increasing weather-dependent solar and wind.

Some also say that at present China effectively controls the solar, wind EVs + components market and increasingly is seeking a lead in hydrogen and nuclear.

If biocoal and biofuel based community electricity are also funded by China, then it will control sustainable liquid fuels for internal combustion engines with low fixed prices as well. It would have no interest in safeguarding the oil and coal industry as part of a manageable orderly transition to a Chinese EV based world powered by Chinese wind, biofuel, biocoal, hydrogen and solar.

If those who did not want total Chinese energy dominance, funded sustainable low cost indoor biofuel, then there would be a separate new green ICE fuel market. Internal combustion engines, especially in hybrids (which Toyota argue forcefully for), would become increasingly sustainable in the medium term.

Military bases could be self sufficient with their own fuel (and be cyber and physically secure).

Data centres could at last have their own energy source to cope with almost exponentially rising demand.

Biofuel can also be used to create low cost green community electricity. This combined with biocoal production stopping deforestation and reducing CO2 levels, removes the biggest objection to EVs being powered with fossil fuel (although does not remove other challenges).

More importantly there would be no monopoly on energy by one nation. Instead there would be a mix of conventional fuels, Chinese energy and biofuel and biocoal controlled elsewhere.


Here are a few interesting facts:
A modular 1 acre GGT fuel unit could produce 4 million gallons of biodiesel or aviation fuel PLUS 4 million gallons of E85 ethanol or biobutanol from a single grown feedstock on any type of land anywhere.
A fully functioning unit can be built in 6 weeks and be producing 20 days later.
A standard fuel unit would cost in the region of $14 million dollars.
Fuel would be approximately $0.30 per litre.
Units are self powered with GGT EfW, unique wind systems or some of the unit's own biofuel.
A biodiesel electricity mini power station would generate 10MW from 1 acre at $0.03 per KW/hour.
Biocoal would cost in the region of $50 a tonne to produce from perpetually renewable indoor grown feedstock

This also is not reliant on Governments giving up revenue because costs are viable so taxable.
Investor, GGT and producer revenues come from any combination of:
• Direct sales of energy
• Direct sales of production units
• GGT Licencing deals with franchisees to include upfront fee and royalty per gallon of fuel, per tonne of 'biocoal' and per MW of electricity produced
• Financing fees from customer loans

The geopolitical big picture includes the fact that 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.

In one or two cases countries have to look at military protection of their energy supply lines from potential future aggression.

Countries are forced to limit their response to otherwise undesirable actions, so as to preserve energy supplies.

GGT local energy production could help solve these 3 issues.

It could be argued that exchanging global energy 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 create this limited energy concentration.

Weather changes, land degradation and water shortages are a different problem. Over 8 billion people live on our planet and that could rise to 9 billion within 25 years.

Up to 20% of that world face an existential threat from environmental disasters which the Pentagon and others, say will lead to mass desperation-migration. This is not the low millions developed countries are dealing with now, but hundreds of millions needing food, housing, money, education and shelter.

Although not our main business focus, GGT units that can grow fuel crops anywhere can also grow food.

A 1 acre GGT modular food unit can produce 50 acres worth of nutritious crops (including fish) and would only need 10% of the water required by the equivalent farmland. While humanity is rarely commercially viable, preventing disastrous levels of immigration by feeding people where they live, might perhaps attract some ‘self-interest’ funds.

A mixed global energy matrix, localised production of energy at a fixed price and even avoidance of mass immigration, could help rebalance the geopolitical map in a positive way.”