If you notice in the vairous statements by Peter, he indicates that it is unfair to make companies pay more to switch over based on government mandates.   I agree with that logic. With pyr's tech, they have a knack (purposeful or not) for developing smater process and patents that reduce the overall cost to switch over to their tech that also ticks the box of GHG reduction emissions (Drosrite and Iron Ore pelletizaiton come to mind, along with recurring natural gas (Air Science add), and the other silicon activites that they are developing with hpq with its cost advantages....will pyr benefit from the government mandates, sure they will.....but the cost saving offerings to the customer (or will not cost them more) to switch over versus the status quo or increased costs sets pyr apart from the other GHG reduction touting firms.  If I were a company and was faced with this choice / mandate, I would go with the path of least resistance as good corporate governance (watching the piggy bank for shareholders) and compliance with government mandates - whether one agrees with them or not.