Talk:GreenFuel Technologies Corporation
|WikiProject Energy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
A couple of things
1. GreenFuel is not an MIT startup as that implies that MIT somehow developed this startup. Reference to GreenFuel and MIT are due to the fact that Isaac Berzin (founder) was from MIT and GreenFuel's first bioreactor system was at MIT Cogen. The company has received no investment funding from MIT as can be seen by the sources already sited
2. One person's pseudo scientific paper based on self promotion does not constitute growing doubt about the technology. During the same time this paper was written GreenFuel successfully deployed systems with NRG, APS, and Sunflower Electric which are some of the largest utilities in the country. Success of these deployments have been documented by several sources to be added with subsequent changes. Furthermore GreenFuel received the Emissions Project of the Year award from Platts for their work.
3. You have to site a specific source and not the website of a lawyer if you are to assert that GreenFuel has been "silencing" scientific research.
4. South Africa news outlets (sources to be added with new changes) have explicitly stated in their reports that there is no evidence or foundation to suggest that GreenFuel commited any fraud in connection with De Beers. De Beers Fuel is under scrutiny but all other participants in the former project have not been accussed. Interesting how the author of these new changes focused in on GreenFuel even though the article sited focused on De Beers.
This comment added @ 17:32 on 15 August 2007 by Algaefarmer
- A bit late in coming, but I added a citecheck template to the appropriate section, especially since the wording of the aforementioned section seems a tad fishy to me. -Special Operative MACAVITYDebrief me 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been a "fan" of this company for some time, after reading about them in National Geographic. After much apparent success, it's strange they shut down ... but what's worse is that this article gives no explanation of why, or of what the future holds (for the company, for their staff & technologies & intellectual property, and for the idea of such a technology). I think this article should be fair to GFT and avoid baseless attacks, but as it is, it seems incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)