Eight topics, fifty-three answers. Drawn from the conversations we have most often with operators, project developers, sustainability teams, and verifiers.
A decentralized pyrolysis platform purpose-built for high-moisture, variable biogenic and organic feedstocks. It integrates a carbonizer, a combined cyclonic-and-catalytic pollution-control assembly, a right-sized heat exchanger, and the KELV°N data platform into one containerized system — producing pathogen-inactivated biochar, recoverable thermal energy, and an audit-grade operating record.
Incineration burns material in open air, releasing the carbon as CO₂. Pyrolysis applies heat in an oxygen-limited environment so carbon is retained in solid biochar. The Biogenic Refinery operates as a pyrolysis system — the carbon stays in the product, supporting carbon-removal accounting that incineration cannot.
Three: pathogen-inactivated biochar, recoverable thermal energy sized to the customer’s process load, and an audit-grade operating record captured by KELV°N. Volume reduction is typically around 90% and can reach up to 95%, depending on feedstock and moisture.
Wet, variable biogenic and organic materials — manures, biosolids, septage-derived solids, food-processing residuals, agricultural residues, algae, selected fibers and non-wovens, absorbent hygiene products, compostable packaging, and reprocessed chars from upstream thermal systems. Each new feedstock is characterized for moisture, ash, halogens, metals, and emissions implications before sizing. Browse the full feedstock catalog →
As a containerized, transportable system in three primary configurations: indoor or industrial installation, outdoor or remote enclosure, and integrated heat-and-power options (CHP, ORC, multi-unit). The same platform is field-verified at ambient temperatures down to −40 °C / −40 °F and operates off-grid where centralized infrastructure is unavailable.
Useful inputs include feedstock composition, moisture range, daily volume, site conditions (climate, available footprint, utility connections), target outputs (biochar end-use, thermal load, optional electricity), and any regulatory framework you’re aligning to (CRCF, EPR, ISO 31800, others). See How we size → for the full input checklist.
Yes, with project-specific qualification. AHPs are mixed-material — the cellulose and fluff-pulp fraction is the biogenic portion, and the SAP and plastic backing are not. We assess the biomass fraction, contamination, halogen content, and the intended biochar end-use before accepting. Where the project fit is right, pyrolysis achieves up to 95% volume reduction on this stream and eliminates the leachate pathway that landfill creates.
Yes. Biosolids (digested or undigested) and septage-derived solids are core feedstocks for the Biogenic Refinery, including in non-sewered sanitation applications (Krueger et al., Water Research, 2020). Phosphorus is conserved in the biochar and remains available for soil-amendment use.
PFAS is evaluated case-by-case. Feedstocks with PFAS concerns require characterization, permitting review, emissions review, and intended biochar end-use review before acceptance. The system is not a shortcut around contaminant management, and acceptance depends on whether the project can meet regulatory, safety, emissions, and end-use requirements.
The biomass fraction can be processed where compost infrastructure is unavailable or where mixing the stream with clean compost is contaminating. Non-compostable plastic content must be screened. We characterize each stream before accepting it for a project.
Regulated hazardous wastes, high-PCB content, radioactive materials, certain incompatible chemical streams, and materials that would compromise system safety or operating-permit compliance. We also exclude materials where contaminants would force the biochar into restricted end-use only.
Not at the dry-feedstock levels that some pyrolysis systems require. The Biogenic Refinery accepts higher-moisture feedstock directly, with the heat exchanger and energy balance designed around moisture removal as part of normal operation. The exact moisture acceptable depends on the feedstock’s calorific value, ash content, and other characteristics — we work that out at sizing.
A first-pass sizing model — enough to confirm whether the project is in our envelope and which model line fits — typically takes one to two weeks after we have feedstock characterization data. A full sizing recommendation suitable for engineering commitment takes longer and usually involves at least one round of feedstock testing.
Often both. A representative sample lets us run our own characterization (moisture, ash, calorific value, volatile fraction). Where the feedstock has known contaminants — halogens, metals, PFAS — we typically also request third-party lab results before final sizing.
Yes. The energy-balance model is run across the operating envelope, not at a single design point. Sites with significant seasonal variation — e.g., dairy operations with a higher-moisture wet-season feed — are sized against the worst-case energy balance, with the heat-exchanger configuration chosen to handle the range.
No. We will not quote without modeling, and we will not model without feedstock data. This is a deliberate position — under-characterized feedstocks produce undersized heat exchangers, surprised customers, and broken commitments. The first conversation is always about the material.
The Biogenic Refinery hardware is protected by 21 issued patents and 5 pending. The energy-balance model itself uses standard thermodynamic principles; the open-source QSDsan toolkit includes a Biogenic Refinery sanunit module that replicates the model and is available for independent verification. We share the model output and assumptions with buyers; we don’t hide the math.
KELV°N is built by Biomass Controls and is purpose-designed for the Biogenic Refinery. It is not a bolt-on of a generic industrial-IoT product. The architecture — sensors, the Intelligent Biofuel Controller, the cloud database, the procedure-driven operator interface, KELV°N Direct for offline operation — was developed in-house and refined through continuous field deployment since 2014. The KELV°N service mark has been in commercial use since 2013.
Yes. Customers own their operating data and can export it at any time in standard formats. KELV°N’s role is to capture, store, and make that data usable for operations, compliance reporting, and carbon-removal documentation. Data-residency and data-handling questions are addressed in the platform agreement and in project-specific scoping.
Yes. Owners and supervisors of multi-site portfolios use KELV°N to monitor all deployed systems through one interface, with role-based access for staff, service partners, and third-party auditors. The dataset is one record across the portfolio rather than per-site silos.
Access is role-based and project-specific. Owners can grant access to staff, service partners, auditors, or regulators as needed, while preserving customer data ownership and export rights. Direct access, exported reports, or both are all supported and configured per project.
KELV°N Direct collects sensor and event data locally during operation and uses a phone-based handoff to upload runs when the operator’s device returns to network coverage. No run is lost; the operating record is preserved for later upload. This is how deployments in off-grid and remote-community settings operate without compromising the audit trail.
Run-by-run KPI capture, state-transition records, feedstock-characterization data, and biochar-production logs — exportable in formats that carbon-removal methodologies under Puro.earth, the European Biochar Certificate, and Verra accept. The platform produces the operating record that verifiers ask for; methodology-specific eligibility depends on feedstock, jurisdiction, and protocol — covered project-by-project in scoping. See carbon-removal frameworks for detail.
The frameworks listed on this page certify projects — a specific facility, feedstock, and end-use combination — not equipment. We describe ourselves as producing the documentation chain those frameworks require, and as supplying equipment designed to meet their technical thresholds. A specific project deploying the Biogenic Refinery and pursuing certification under any of these methodologies works with the relevant certification body; we contribute the equipment, the operating record, and the peer-reviewed LCA basis.
In principle, no. All four major voluntary methodologies — Puro.earth, EBC C-Sink, Verra VM0044, and CAR — explicitly require no-double-counting, with registry-account uniqueness and a paper trail confirming the same removal is not credited twice. A project chooses one methodology per cohort of biochar production based on geography, feedstock, end-use, and offtaker considerations; the choice is made at project scoping.
The hydrogen-to-organic-carbon molar ratio measures the degree of carbonization. Below 0.7, the biochar’s persistent aromatic structure is sufficient to demonstrate long-term carbon stability under Puro.earth, EBC, Verra, CAR, and the EU CRCF biochar carbon-removal activity. The Biogenic Refinery is engineered to operate within the time-temperature window that produces low-H:Corg biochar across the feedstock range it accepts; the resulting ratio is confirmed by laboratory analysis of project samples on the schedule the methodology specifies.
For soil and soil-like end uses, persistence — and therefore credited removal per tonne of biochar — varies with the soil temperature at the application location. Cooler soils preserve more carbon, warmer soils less. Puro.earth and CAR both apply soil-temperature-adjusted permanence factors. The application location and its mean soil temperature are inputs the project developer reports; the resulting permanence factor flows through the methodology’s quantification equations.
Yes, conditionally. Puro.earth, Verra VM0044, and CAR all accept non-woody waste feedstocks under defined sustainability and traceability criteria. EBC's positive list similarly includes a broad range of biogenic materials. Project-specific eligibility depends on the methodology's feedstock rules, the end-use pathway, and any contamination, regulatory, or permitting considerations.
PFAS in biosolids and other waste feedstocks is a contaminant-management question, not a carbon-accounting question — addressed through feedstock characterization, intended-use review, and emissions and end-use considerations. The methodologies require environmental-quality screening (PAHs, heavy metals, dioxins, PCBs) appropriate to end use, but they do not, on their own, certify contaminant destruction. PFAS handling is determined project-by-project.
No. The CRCF establishes a framework under which voluntary removals can be certified at EU level under approved methodologies. Voluntary registries operate alongside it; Puro.earth, for instance, has stated readiness to integrate with the CRCF. The relationship between voluntary issuance and CRCF certification is still being defined as the regulation’s methodologies are adopted.
ISO 14064-2 is a project-level GHG quantification and reporting standard. It does not replace carbon-removal methodologies such as Puro.earth, EBC C-Sink, Verra VM0044, CAR, or CRCF. The Biogenic Refinery and the KELV°N operating record support project-level quantification under ISO 14064-2 by producing the monitored data, chain-of-custody evidence, and emissions inputs a verifier expects, regardless of which methodology the project ultimately registers under.
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) is a market-integrity layer for voluntary carbon credits. Its Core Carbon Principles assess crediting programmes — Puro.earth is an ICVCM Eligible Carbon Crediting Programme, for example. ICVCM does not assess equipment manufacturers, and being mentioned alongside an ICVCM-eligible programme is not the same as Biomass Controls holding any ICVCM status of its own. What matters for a project is that the programme it registers under is recognized; what we contribute is the documentation that supports the project’s credibility once the programme is chosen.
Most carbon-credit methodologies — Verra VM0044 explicitly, others by construction — exclude end uses where biochar is combusted (e.g., as a charcoal substitute) or used as a reductant in steel-making, because those pathways re-release the stored carbon. Such applications may still serve a decarbonization purpose by displacing fossil reductants, but they do not generate carbon-removal credits under the methodologies described on this page.
Most commercial operators do not authorize their projects to be named publicly. The reasons vary by operator — competitive sensitivity, regulatory or permitting timing, contractual confidentiality, or simply that they prefer to control their own communication around the project. The deployments in § 02 are the ones where the operator has authorized reference, or where the work is documented in peer-reviewed publication.
Yes. The four production deployments named in § 02 are working facilities, not pilot demonstrations. The India fecal-sludge plants and the Kivalina installation are public-record references; the Alaska industrial-food site and the dairy-farm deployment are publicly substantiated through the brochure documentation and partner relationships. Several systems delivered earlier than these have completed their full ten-year design service life and remain operational.
Yes — within the bounds of what is public. The peer-reviewed publications in § 04 are openly citable, and the deployments in § 02 can be referenced as documented. Commercial deployments under NDA can be discussed in abstract terms during scoping, and direct introductions to operators (where consent is given) are sometimes possible. The cleanest path is to share what your project needs to evidence; we’ll match that to the appropriate field reference.
That depends on the feedstock class, the climate, the operating scale, and whether the project is sanitation, agricultural, industrial, or research. The seven deployments in § 02 cover the main combinations the platform has been documented against. Project-specific scoping is how we match the closest field reference to a new project, including selecting relevant peer-reviewed evidence from § 04 to share with verifiers, regulators, or offtakers.
The deployments in § 02 produced the operating runs that the KELV°N® data platform recorded, and the peer-reviewed LCA/TEA in § 04 modeled the life-cycle GHG basis across five country contexts. Carbon-removal methodologies — Puro.earth, EBC, Verra VM0044, and CAR — ask for both: documented operational evidence and a defensible LCA basis. The field record is what both halves rest on. See the carbon-removal frameworks page for methodology detail →
The India full-scale fecal-sludge treatment work is one public example outside North America. Commercial deployments on other continents exist but are confidential. The “three continents” figure on the homepage and on /kelvn-data-platform/ refers to deployment geography rather than to a publicly enumerated list of named projects.
The carbonizer is the most visible part of the system, but it is not the part that determines whether decentralized pyrolysis on variable feedstock actually works. The harder engineering problem is the controller — managing combustion, emissions, catalyst operation, clinker prevention, and heat recovery in real time as feedstock energy content shifts. Five of the six patent families protect that controller architecture or the subsystems it manages. Comparable systems often rely on simpler controllers and on thermal oxidizers downstream to handle the emissions consequences of that simplicity.
Patent counts and jurisdictions are public-record questions. The point of this page is not to rank competitors, but to show that Biomass Controls has protected the integrated controller, catalytic-converter, heat-recovery, clinker-management, and decentralized-safety architecture that defines the Biogenic Refinery.
Patents can always be worked around at some engineering cost. The question is whether the work-around delivers the same operating envelope — wet feedstocks, decentralized deployment, low-emissions operation without a thermal oxidizer, integrated heat recovery, and continuous operation across clinker-prone material. A competitor pursuing a different combination of those properties has design space available; a competitor pursuing the same combination has a more constrained design space, and the work-around adds cost and risk to their development path.
Patent applications typically take three to seven years between filing and issuance, and pending applications extend the portfolio’s effective coverage forward in time. The five pending applications in the portfolio sit in EU jurisdictions, primarily extending the same six families that the issued patents cover, rather than opening entirely new technology areas.
No. The portfolio defines what is protected when the system is deployed; it does not restrict where, to whom, or under what commercial structure the company sells, licenses, or partners. Commercial decisions follow project-specific scoping.
The patent portfolio protects the hardware-and-controller architecture of the Biogenic Refinery. KELV°N® is the operating and data layer — a separately registered service mark covering the software that runs above that hardware. The two are complementary: the patents protect the system that runs; KELV°N records and reports what ran. See the KELV°N data platform →
Yes. New engineering — particularly in heat-recovery routing, recovered-water handling, contaminant-management approaches, and the next generation of controller logic — is the standing input to the IP roadmap. The portfolio is not a static asset; it grows with the platform.
Yes. The feedstock fields are useful when you have them, optional when you don’t. For early-stage qualifying conversations, we have run productive first calls on nothing more than “we generate roughly N tons per day of biosolids in [region] and are looking at end-use options.” The conversation surfaces what to measure next.
No. Exploratory inquiries from operators, project developers, sustainability leads, students, and researchers are all welcome. The form is the same; just say so in the “what you’re trying to accomplish” field.
A typical first-pass sizing — from initial inquiry to a model line recommendation — takes 2–6 weeks for projects with clear feedstock characterization, longer for projects that require lab analysis or pilot operation first. Carbon-removal-method-aligned projects often take longer because the methodology version, jurisdiction, and offtake structure all need scoping in parallel.
Yes. A standard mutual NDA is available on request. For projects with sensitive feedstock provenance (e.g., proprietary industrial residues), we typically sign before the first sizing call.
Yes, by appointment. Site visits to the Woodstock, Connecticut operations facility are available for serious project-stage conversations. Reach out via the form or directly to info@biomasscontrols.com.
Welcome. Note “research” in the inquiry path or free-form field. Our published LCA/TEA basis (Rowles et al., including Hallowell, 2022) emerged from one such collaboration; we have ongoing relationships with several university research groups in sanitation, biochar, and life-cycle assessment.
The same form works; specify “press” in the inquiry path or free-form field. PR routing is handled directly by the leadership team.
If the question you have isn't answered above, the inquiry form sends a sized note straight to our engineering team. Typical response within two business days.