Pre-feasibility Study for Pyrolysis Installation

Client & Context

An investment firm was evaluating projects to convert nut shells and husks into biochar, wood vinegar, wood tar, and syngas via a proprietary pyrolysis process. New limits on agricultural burning created an opening for on-site valorization and potential carbon credit revenue. LEC Partners was retained to deliver an independent pre-feasibility to inform go/no-go decisions.

Objectives

We set out to benchmark technology maturity, validate realistic product pricing and yields, sanity-check CAPEX/OPEX, and identify risks, gaps, and next steps for investors.

LEC Partners’ Approach

Our team reviewed evidence across Process, Products, and Project readiness; framed technology claims against TRL; and applied industry heuristics to cost and staffing. We summarized conclusions and what must be proven before advancing to feasibility and EPC.

Key Findings

Technology readiness & operations

Operational evidence did not yet support a “proven” (TRL ≥7) designation on the target almond feedstock. Furthermore, demonstrations were short, mass/energy balances were incomplete, and differentiation versus common slow-pyrolysis systems was not established.

Products, yields & realistic pricing

Modeled product split aligned with slow-pyrolysis ranges, however several price assumptions were optimistic for early-stage commercial scale:

• Biochar: ~31% yield is typical; premium pricing requires tight specs and documented performance. Agriculture-grade pricing should be modeled conservatively.
• Liquids (wood vinegar/tar): Achievable pricing depends on purification, packaging, and consistent quality; wholesale references suggest lower starting points.
• Syngas/power: Small-scale power export is feasible but demands stable, cleaned gas and reliable engines; heat use on site may be the more practical sink.

CAPEX, OPEX & investment readiness

LEC Partners found that bottom-up equipment estimates were low relative to customary installation factors, EPC, and contingency. Labor and maintenance were also understated for 24/7 operation.

• CAPEX: Applying blended install factors and typical contingencies results in materially higher all-in capital.
• OPEX: Plan for full-shift staffing and ~5% of CAPEX/year for maintenance; adjust for utilities, consumables, and downtime.
• Readiness: Proceeding requires vendor-backed quotes, performance data on the actual feedstock, and bankable feedstock/offtake.

Conclusions

On-site conversion of agricultural residues remains compelling; nevertheless, this program requires deeper engineering definition, extended runs on target feedstock, validated product specs/pricing, and re-baselined economics before funding.

Recommendations & Next Steps

1. Pilot/extended campaigns on nut-shell feedstock with full product testing against target applications.
2. FEL-2 design and vendor-validated CAPEX; update OPEX with realistic staffing and maintenance.
3. The project team should secure bankable feedstock and offtake agreements, then re-model economics using conservative prices and credit values.
4. Adopt stage-gate development with clear KPIs prior to EPC.