1. Biomass Feedstock Supply

Whether biochar can be used effectively and produced at scale depends first on the feedstock rather than biochar production equipment. If the feedstock is poorly selected or supply is unstable, even highly optimized process parameters cannot compensate for these limitations.

Feedstock Selection

The physicochemical properties of biomass feedstocks directly determine the performance that biochar can ultimately achieve. Four factors are particularly important:

• Feedstock type: Biomass has different harvesting seasons and geographic distributions, which directly affect supply stability.
• Moisture content: Higher moisture increases pre-drying energy consumption and causes fluctuations in product properties.
• Ash content: Higher ash content increases impurity interference in the reactor, directly affecting the stability of metallurgical operations.
• Lignocellulosic composition: Variations in lignocellulose content affect fixed carbon content and pore structure of biochar product.

Therefore, it is difficult to consistently produce qualified metallurgical-grade biochar without strict feedstock control. This is why the availability and consistency of feedstock resources should be evaluated from the early stages of project development.

Large-Scale Feedstock Supply

The feedstock requirements of metal smelting are far greater than those of conventional biochar applications. The availability of regional biomass resources, reliable collection systems, and long-term supply capacity are widely recognized as major bottlenecks to large-scale adoption. However, 2 approaches to scaling up feedstock supply have already been demonstrated in the industry:

Establishing dedicated plantations:

Aperam BioEnergia operates approximately 124,000 hectares of eucalyptus plantations in Brazil and produces more than 400,000 tons of charcoal annually. The charcoal is supplied to Aperam’s steel plant in the same state. However, the replicability of this model depends on whether a project developer has the capacity to secure and manage large areas of land. Its potential ecological impacts also need to be carefully assessed.

Deploying projects near waste streams:

Our strategic partner Exomad Green in Bolivia uses residual materials from local sawmills as feedstock. Its project is located between the feedstock supply area and the biochar application area. The company plans to increase annual biochar production capacity to more than 400,000 tons by 2027. However, this pathway is currently focused on biochar CDR applications and has not yet been extended to metallurgical applications.

2. Standardization of Biochar for Metallurgical Applications

Lack of Standardized Biochar Quality Indicators

For years, the industry has relied primarily on fixed carbon content as the benchmark for biochar qualification. However, testing has shown that biochar with qualified fixed carbon content can still exhibit uneven reactions inside the furnace and cause unstable operating conditions. The performance of biochar in metallurgical applications is also determined by five often-overlooked indicators:

Therefore, the quality evaluation system for metallurgical biochar needs to be comprehensively upgraded. Instead of relying solely on fixed carbon content, the evaluation should incorporate multiple dimensions, including high-temperature reactivity and dynamic reaction behavior inside the furnace.

Control of Pyrolysis Process Conditions

Key metallurgical biochar properties are not inherent characteristics of the biomass. They are directly influenced by pyrolysis system parameters. Comparative tests under different operating conditions show that three variables play a particularly important role:

The real challenge lies in standardizing the optimal combination of these parameters. Changes in feedstock batches or equipment configurations can significantly affect the process. The same parameter settings therefore cannot simply be transferred from one project to another. Targeted process testing and adjustment are required for each specific feedstock and equipment configuration.

3. Limitations in Practical Deployment

Even with clear quality indicators and optimized pyrolysis parameters, biochar still isn’t fully ready for metallurgical use. Several practical challenges remain.

Inherent Performance Limitations of Biochar

Compared with coke, conventional biochar has two inherent disadvantages:

• Insufficient mechanical strength: Biochar can easily break down and become pulverized under the high-temperature and high-pressure conditions inside a furnace. This reduces furnace permeability and can compromise reaction stability.
• Interference from ash and impurities: If ash from biomass feedstock enters the furnace directly, it can cause coking, corrosion, and unstable operating conditions. This can directly affect the purity of metallurgical products.

---

Cost of Upgrading and Modification

Densification, water washing for ash removal, and elemental doping are three key processes for improving the mechanical strength of biochar, reducing impurity content, and optimizing its high-temperature reaction performance. However, each process also introduces additional limitations:

• Higher costs: Process upgrades can significantly increase production costs, creating a trade-off between performance and economic feasibility.
• Process integration challenges: Adding these three processes requires production-line upgrades and places higher demands on the precision and sophistication of production management.

---

Storage and Logistics Management

Most projects concentrate resources on production equipment. However, storage and logistics are equally critical for preserving the metallurgical properties of biochar.

• Biochar’s physical properties: Metallurgical-grade biochar typically has a highly porous structure, making it naturally prone to moisture absorption and breakage, which directly affect its performance once charged into the furnace.
• Storage & logistics system requirements: A dedicated logistics system requires tailored solutions, from storage environment control to transportation methods. This is an additional investment that is easily overlooked.

4. System Integration with Metallurgical Plants

The optimal industrial model for biochar metallurgy in the future may not be to build standalone biochar production plants. Instead, biochar pyrolysis equipment could be integrated directly into metallurgical facilities. By recovering waste heat from metallurgical processes to power biochar production, this model could achieve energy integration and resource circularity. However, integrating metallurgical waste heat presents several challenges.

Waste Heat Matching

A pyrolysis unit already involves two heat sources: waste heat from pyrolysis flue gas and heat generated by combustible gas combustion. Once integrated into a metallurgical plant, these two heat sources must also be coordinated with the plant’s waste heat system. This adds another layer of complexity to heat matching.

Pyrolysis flue gas heat:

Both waste heat streams can be used to dry biomass feedstock. However, integrating them into the drying system requires dedicated piping infrastructure. Pipe routing, connection interfaces, and transmission distances all be reconfigured during engineering design.

Combustible gas heat:

Pyrolysis requires much tighter temperature control than feedstock drying. Determining how to proportion and regulate the two heat sources to maintain the precise temperature profile required for pyrolysis requires project-specific commissioning and optimization.

Equipment Modification

Combustible gas typically contains reducing and high-calorific-value components such as CH₄, CO, and H₂. Directly burning and discharging these gases without recovering their energy represents a waste of resources. Once external waste heat replaces part of the combustible gas combustion, the existing heating and recovery systems of the biochar production facility must be modified accordingly.

Biochar is Reshaping the Decarbonization Path for Metallurgy Industries

Biochar metallurgy is not an isolated technical improvement. It is a key pathway for the steel industry to achieve deep decarbonization beyond 2030. Whether this pathway can truly be scaled and replicated does not depend on a breakthrough in any single process parameter, but on whether the entire industry chain can mature in a coordinated way. For the industry, now is the window to act. If you’re interested in metallurgical biochar production solutions, feel free to contact us.

The post Core Technical Challenges of Biochar Application in Metallurgy appeared first on Beston Group.

Ex-situ Indirect Heating Thermal Desorption

Ex-situ indirect heating thermal desorption is an environmental remediation technology designed for high-value hydrocarbon recovery and soil decontamination, which heats excavated contaminated soil or oil sludge through reactor surfaces in an oxygen-deprived environment using indirectly heated rotary kilns or thermal screw.

Ex-situ Direct Heating Thermal Desorption

Ex-situ direct heating thermal desorption is an environmental remediation technique that applies direct thermal energy to excavated soils, typically utilizing primary treatment units such as direct-fired rotary kilns, aggregate dryers, or conveyor furnaces.

In-situ Indirect Heating Thermal Desorption

In-situ indirect heating thermal desorption is a non-excavation soil remediation technology that applies subsurface heat to vaporize organic pollutants in place, typically utilizing treatment systems such as electrical thermal wells, thermal blanket systems, or steam/hot-air injection wells.

Technical Comparison Table for Thermal Desorption Unit Selection

To help you quickly evaluate the most suitable technology for your specific soil or oil sludge remediation requirements, the table below provides a side-by-side comparison across key operational, safety, and financial dimensions.

Key Selection Criteria	Ex-situ Sealed Indirect Heating TDU	Ex-situ Direct Heating TDU	In-situ Indirect Heating TDU
Application Scenario	Centralized oil sludge & drill cuttings plants	Large-scale excavated soil projects	Non-excavation / Deep soil & urban sites
Heat Transfer Method	Indirect shell conduction (zero flue gas contact)	Direct flame/gas contact	Subsurface thermal conduction
Safety & Explosion Risk	Very Low (sealed, oxygen-deprived)	High (flame contacts organic vapor)	Low to Moderate
Off-Gas Treatment Scale	Minimal (isolated process vapor)	Massive (high tail-gas system cost)	Moderate (vacuum extraction stream)
Pyrolysis Oil Recovery	Yes (High-Purity / High-Value)	No (thermal oxidation)	No (highly diluted vapor)
Primary Project Goal	Maximized ROI via high-purity oil recovery	Rapid soil decontamination & volume reduction	Remediation without surface disruption

Conclusion

Each thermal desorption technology serves specific remediation needs. While direct and in-situ systems excel in rapid soil cleanup or non-excavation scenarios, ex-situ sealed indirect heating TDU systems are the best choice for investors seeking high ROI through valuable pyrolysis oil recovery. Looking for the optimal equipment configuration? Contact Beston Group today to receive customized engineering solutions and expert consultation for your project.

The post Technical Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Thermal Desorption Technologies for Soil/Oil Sludge Treatment appeared first on Beston Group.

1. Why Develop this Pyrolysis Feedstock Guideline?

1.1 Global Context: Rise of Chemical Recycling

Stakeholder groups ranging from packaging manufacturers to government agencies are interested in the potential of advanced recycling to add new dimensions to plastic waste recycling, particularly with expectations that the technologies will complement mechanical recycling. Among various chemical recycling pathways, pyrolysis plays a leading role in build a closed-loop plastic circular system. Through thermal depolymerisation, waste plastics are converted into naphtha, which can then re-enter plastic production chains.

1.2 Core Challenge: Lack of Uniform Feedstock Standards

Rapid expansion of the pyrolysis sector has laid bare a fundamental industry challenge: the long-standing absence of unified quality specifications for feedstock.

• For waste sorting operators: Sorting facilities are accustomed to feedstock specifications for mechanical plastic recycling. They lack clear guidance on preparing qualified mixed plastic feedstock for pyrolysis plants.
• For pyrolysis equipment suppliers and plant operators: Uncertain feedstock composition can cause undesirable effects including lowered process yield, reduced output quality, and wear on equipment, which all add cost burdens.

1.3 Objective of the Guideline

To address these issues, AEPW and Eunomia jointly developed this report. The purpose of this study is to help to provide clarity around the input feedstock requirements for pyrolysis and to propose a model feedstock specification that can be used as a starting point for discussions between pyrolysis operators and material suppliers.

2. Pyrolysis Feedstock Specification

3. Drivers that Determine the Feedstock Specification

Image Source: Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) & Eunomia. Adapted from “Feedstock Quality Guidelines for Pyrolysis of Plastic Waste” (Figure 2.2).

Concluding Remarks

The pyrolysis of waste plastics (advanced recycling) is a rigorous science where “Input Dictates Output.” By understanding this international feedstock quality guide, global customers can, when conducting project feasibility studies and equipment procurement, more scientifically align local waste plastic composition and economics to customize the most efficient, stable, and commercially profitable pyrolysis solution.

The post Feedstock Contaminant Limits for Plastic Pyrolysis: Key Data Shared from AEPW Guidelines appeared first on Beston Group.

Forest Wildfire Warning: The Numbers You Need to Know

What Causes Wildfires?

Two independent factors determine whether a wildfire starts and how large it becomes: an ignition source and fuel, which refers to the biomass accumulated in forests. Meanwhile, worsening climate conditions, including drought, extreme heat, and El Niño cycles, amplify both factors year after year.

Ignition Sources

Natural (less common but highly destructive)

• Dry thunderstorms: Lightning strikes during dry conditions. Rain evaporates before reaching the ground, so lightning ignites dry trees.
• Spontaneous combustion: During prolonged droughts and extreme heat, deep organic matter can generate enough heat through decomposition to ignite.

Human-caused (cause over 80% of wildfires worldwide)

• Careless use of fire: Campfires left burning, discarded cigarette butts, agricultural burning, and transparent waste that concentrates sunlight can all ignite fires.
• Infrastructure failures: Strong winds can bring down power lines. Sparks from fallen lines can ignite dry vegetation. This has triggered several of California’s most destructive wildfires.

---

Fuel

• Ladder fuel accumulation: In North America and the Mediterranean, decades of fire suppression have allowed small trees and shrubs to accumulate instead of being cleared by periodic surface fires. Foresters call this ladder fuel. It allows fires to spread into the canopy and become destructive crown fires.
• Poor land management: In South America and Southeast Asia, fuel accumulation comes from deforestation, slash-and-burn agriculture, and untreated logging residues. Together, these practices continuously create combustible biomass.
• Dead trees caused by pests: In western North America, bark beetle outbreaks affected about 85,000 square miles of forest between 2000 and 2017. They left behind standing dead trees that became biomass fuel. Boreal forests across Europe and Canada face similar fuel accumulation from insect infestations.

Takeaway: The severity of a wildfire depends far more on fuel accumulation than on the ignition source. An ignition source may start a fire. However, the amount, continuity, and density of combustible biomass determine whether that fire remains manageable or grows into an uncontrollable wildfire.

Why Traditional Forest Biomass Removal Delivers Limited Results

Thinning and prescribed burning are widely recognized as the two primary methods for reducing forest biomass.

• Thinning physically removes excess small trees and shrubs.
• Prescribed burning mimics the natural fire cycle and clears accumulated leaf litter, dead branches, and other surface fuels.

However, even though both methods are effective in principle, biomass continues to accumulate faster than it can be removed. In practice, three major challenges slow their implementation.

How Biochar Production Addresses Forest Waste Management Challenges

Facing the growing pressure of biomass accumulation in forests, the effective solution is not to eliminate biomass, but to transform it. Traditional management methods often end with biomass being burned and released into the atmosphere. Pyrolysis plant takes a different approach. It heats biomass in an oxygen-limited environment and locks the carbon into structurally stable biochar. This conversion process brings several natural advantages:

• The process does not rely on continuous oxygen supply, so it avoids the uncontrolled spread risks associated with open flames.
• It produces far less smoke and particulate matter than open burning.
• The system can also recover pyrolysis gases for energy use, reducing external fuel consumption.

These characteristics allow biochar production to directly address the challenges of forest biomass management.

Equipment Selection: Fixed and Mobile Systems

Forest conditions and applications vary widely. Some areas support long-term operation of large-scale equipment, while others are remote and difficult to access. Routine thinning requires continuous management, whereas post-disaster biomass removal demands rapid deployment. Therefore, biochar equipment follows two different technical pathways, each addressing specific biomass management needs.

Fixed Industrial System

Operates at a fixed industrial site with supporting infrastructure and remains at the same location after commissioning. It is designed for large-scale commercial carbon removal projects, as well as agricultural & forestry biomass utilization projects.

Advantages

• High automation reduces labor costs per unit of output.
• Energy recovery enables near self-sufficient operation with minimal external fuel.
• Regulate temperature and pressure in real time, keeping biochar carbon content, H/C ratio, and pore structure stable.

Limitations

• As a fixed asset, it requires a stable nearby biomass supply. Otherwise, transportation costs increase.
• Construction involves site planning, EIA, and dMRV integration, requiring significant upfront time and investment.
• Systems require stable production schedules and lack the flexibility to handle scattered, remote, and complex forest conditions.

---

Mobile Working Unit

Can be designed as either modular units for rapid assembly and transport, or trailer-mounted systems for direct relocation between forest sites. It enables rapid deployment for forest biomass management, wildfire prevention, and emergency cleanup.

Advantages

• High mobility allows equipment to move directly to biomass sources, reducing transportation costs.
• The system can relocate according to cleanup progress, making it suitable for scattered and small-scale operations.
• Rapid deployment reduces the waiting time after forest disturbances, enabling faster biomass removal and site recovery.

Limitations

• Single mobile unit usually has lower capacity and cannot independently handle large-scale, high-density biomass.
• Frequent relocation creates additional transportation emissions, which must be included in net carbon removal calculations.
• Operation efficiency depends on site accessibility, weather conditions, and the availability of local support facilities.

Choosing the Right Approach: The choice between fixed and mobile biochar systems depends on biomass availability, site conditions, and operational goals. Fixed systems maximize efficiency and output for stable biomass supply, while mobile systems provide flexibility for dispersed and hard-to-access forest areas. Together, these two approaches create a more adaptable pathway for converting forest biomass into valuable biochar and carbon removal solutions.

Added Value of Converting Forest Biomass into Biochar

Carbon Credits

• Carbon revenue: Biochar carbon credits reached an average transaction price of $164 per ton in 2025, making biochar one of the few engineered carbon removal pathways with large-scale delivery capability. Forest residues often have no feedstock costs. Combined with the ecological value of forest management, these projects can achieve higher premiums.
• Cost offset: Thinning residues have limited commercial value, and transportation costs often exceed their value. Carbon credit revenue can offset cleanup expenses, turning thinning projects from a financial burden into cost-neutral or revenue-generating activities and reducing reliance on public funding.

---

Soil Restoration

• Post-fire soil restoration: After wildfires, high temperatures can destroy soil organic matter and microbial activity. Natural recovery often takes years. Returning biochar to burned areas helps rebuild soil organic matter, accelerates vegetation recovery, and supports ecological restoration efforts after wildfires.
• Daily water retention: Biochar improves water-holding capacity in surface and root zones of forests, helping vegetation and surface litter retain moisture during dry seasons. Applying biochar to thinned forests or areas around firebreaks provides additional resilience during drought periods and supports long-term forest management.

A Sustainable Forest Management Cycle

Using forest waste biomass to produce biochar has become an important pathway for wildfire prevention. It transforms the biomass removal challenge faced by forest management agencies into a sustainable practice that restores value to forests. Instead of being burned as waste, processed branches and residues can return to forest soils or enter the carbon market, supporting long-term forest health. The technology is mature, and equipment solutions now include different pathways for various forest conditions and operational scenarios. For forest management agencies and landowners, the next step is to integrate this approach into routine forest management systems.

The post Biochar Production: A Practical Path to Global Wildfire Prevention appeared first on Beston Group.

Overview of the Ongoing Emissions Responsibility Framework

Companies will keep generating GHG emissions even as they progress along their decarbonization pathway. So far, these Ongoing Emissions, temporarily unavoidable, have lacked an institutional mechanism for being addressed. Meanwhile, the practice of purchasing carbon credits to “offset” emissions has long faced greenwashing scrutiny, with unclear rules and a weak scientific basis.
Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 responds through the OER framework. Companies must now take on additional responsibility for their ongoing emissions through quantifiable Climate Contributions. Specifically, the framework unfolds in three phases:

• Now through 2035: OER remains an optional recognition program. Companies participate voluntarily, select a contribution level, and make a public declaration on the SBTi platform.
• From 2035: SBTi will require Category A companies to support carbon removal, with coverage rising progressively.
• From the net-zero target year: all companies must neutralize 100% of residual emissions with eligible carbon removals.

Importantly, SBTi has also made clear that the OER framework will not replace existing carbon credit and climate contribution frameworks such as Puro.earth and Isometric. Instead, it will establish minimum integrity standards and develop a recognition mechanism for third-party frameworks.

OER Recognition Program: Participation Mechanics and Contribution Requirements

The OER recognition program is voluntary until 2035. Companies select one of three recognition levels — Engaged, Advanced, or Leadership — distinguished by the share of ongoing emissions covered and the scale of climate contributions required. Recognition is assessed at the end of each five-year target cycle and publicly displayed on the SBTi Dashboard.

• For Engaged and Advanced levels, companies may choose either the contribution budget or the verified mitigation outcomes approach — not both.
• At the Leadership level, both are required simultaneously. The contribution budget must first be used to purchase verified mitigation outcomes equal in volume to covered emissions; any remaining funds may support other eligible climate actions.
• All funds committed under the contribution budget must be fully disbursed within the same five-year target cycle.
• The $80/tCO₂e benchmark is grounded in social cost of carbon (SCC) and marginal abatement cost (MAC) literature, and is subject to periodic review.

Key Terms

Post-2035 Mandatory Requirements and Durability Classification

While the OER recognition program remains voluntary until 2035, V2.0 sets out a clear mandatory trajectory for what comes after. For biochar CDR project developers, this is the section that matters most — it defines who must buy carbon removals, how much, and critically, what qualifies.

Mandatory Requirements: Timeline and Mechanics

• From 2035: Category A companies must support carbon removals covering at least 1% of total ongoing emissions, rising linearly to 100% by the net-zero target year (no later than 2050).
• Durability requirement: Of covered emissions attributable to long-lived GHGs, at least 10% must come from long-lived removals, also rising linearly to 100% by the net-zero target year.
• Short-lived GHGs: Covered emissions from short-lived GHGs (e.g. CH₄) may be addressed with short-lived removals, long-lived removals, or a combination of both.
• At the net-zero target year: Both Category A and Category B companies must neutralize 100% of residual emissions, long-lived GHGs require long-lived removals specifically.

---

How the Numbers Work

Take a company with total ongoing emissions of 1,000,000 tCO₂e in 2035, of which 80% (800,000 tCO₂e) are attributable to long-lived GHGs:

• Must support at least 1% in carbon removals = 10,000 tCO₂e
• Of those 10,000 tCO₂e covered, 80% are attributable to long-lived GHGs = 8,000 tCO₂e
• At least 10% of that 8,000 tCO₂e must come from long-lived removals = 800 tCO₂e

Of the 10,000 tCO₂e purchased in 2035, at least 800 must qualify as long-lived removals. The remaining 9,200 tCO₂e may be short-lived or long-lived removals, or a combination. Both thresholds increase linearly each year.

Where Does Biochar Stand?

The Scientific Case

High-quality biochar is produced at sufficient pyrolysis temperature with low H/C_org ratios. It has a carbon storage half-life broadly recognized at hundreds to thousands of years, placing it within the definition of long-lived removal. This distinguishes biochar from living biomass carbon sinks such as forests and soil organic carbon. They depend on photosynthesis to maintain sequestration and carry significantly higher physical reversal risks.

The Open Question: Call for Evidence

SBTi has not yet made an explicit durability classification for biochar in V2.0. A forthcoming Call for Evidence will examine whether shorter-lived carbon removals can deliver climate-equivalent permanence through contractual, financial, or stewardship mechanisms. The outcome will determine whether biochar credits can count toward the long-lived removal quota, directly shaping biochar’s addressable market and credit positioning within corporate removal portfolios.

Key Terms

Term	Definition
Long-lived GHGs	Greenhouse gases with long atmospheric lifetimes, including CO₂, N₂O, and certain halogenated compounds. Their warming effect persists for decades to centuries after emission.
Residual Emissions	Emissions remaining at the net-zero target year after all feasible mitigation measures have been implemented.
Long-lived Removal	Carbon removal capable of retaining carbon for centuries to millennia (IPCC, 2022).
Short-lived Removal	Carbon removal capable of retaining carbon for decades to centuries (IPCC, 2022).
Net-Zero Target Year	The year a company commits to reducing emissions to residual levels and neutralizing all remaining emissions with carbon removals. No later than 2050.

Market Implications: Corporate Buyers and Biochar CDR Project Developers

V2.0 reshapes the carbon removal market from two directions simultaneously — creating structured demand on the buyer side while raising the quality bar on the supply side. The implications differ depending on where you sit.

For Corporate Buyers

• Shift in Procurement: Before V2.0, carbon removal procurement was a voluntary ESG action. From 2035, companies face mandatory emission coverage by carbon removal. Therefore, removal credits procurement is already shifting into dedicated corporate capital planning.
• Forward Positioning: Contribution budgets represent multi-year capital commitments, not annual discretionary spend. Verified supply takes time to scale. Companies start planning for long-term offtakes now will gain a competitive edge in CDR market.
• Durability Shapes Offtake: For biochar buyers, the pending durability classification dictates long-term contract design. A long-lived status makes biochar eligible to neutralize CO₂ and N₂O residuals—the bulk of industrial profiles. Until finalized, buyers will price in a risk discount.

---

For Biochar CDR Project Developers

• Rising Biochar CDR Demand: From 2035, thousands of companies become compliance buyers, with obligations rising linearly toward net-zero. Spot market sales will give way to structured offtakes. Developers with stable capacity and robust dMRV system are best positioned.
• Integrity Driving Project Quality: V2.0’s integrity framework, covering quantification, reversal safeguards, and third-party assurance, must be designed into projects. As a result, projects under high-standard registries such as Puro.earth or Isometric have a head start.
• Durability as Commercial Asset: SBTi’s pending classification makes durability the primary driver for biochar pricing. Developers must treat H/C_org ratios, pyrolysis technology, and monitoring records as high-value commercial assets to unlock premium corporate demand.

Looking Ahead: The Decisive Window for Biochar CDR

SBTi V2.0 redefines carbon removal from an ESG option into a core compliance requirement. With the upcoming Call for Evidence on durability, operational metrics like H/C_org ratios, pyrolysis parameters, and dMRV tracking are no longer mere paperwork—they are high-value commercial assets. As corporate capital shifts toward the 2035 compliance horizon, high-integrity project developers will define the premium tier of the global market. Follow our LinkedIn to stay updated on critical biochar CDR policy developments and industry insights.

FAQs

01 When does V2.0 take effect?

V2.0 was published on 11 June 2026 and takes effect on 1 February 2027.

02 Is participation in the OER recognition program currently mandatory?

No. The OER recognition program remains fully voluntary until 2035. From 2035, mandatory carbon removal requirements apply to Category A companies. Category B companies are subject to the same requirements, though with different assurance obligations.

03 Is biochar classified as a long-lived or short-lived removal?

V2.0 does not make an explicit classification for biochar. The scientific case — based on high-quality biochar’s carbon storage half-life of hundreds to thousands of years — supports a long-lived classification. SBTi will address this through a forthcoming Call for Evidence. The industry should monitor developments closely and prepare relevant evidence.

04 Are existing Puro.earth or Isometric certifications still valid under V2.0?

V2.0 explicitly states it will not replace existing high-integrity frameworks. Instead, SBTi will develop a recognition mechanism to identify third-party frameworks that meet its minimum integrity criteria. Specific recognition standards have not yet been published. Projects already certified under these registries are well-positioned once the mechanism is in place.

05 Are the $20/$80 benchmarks mandatory market prices?

No. These are contribution budget benchmarks used to calculate a company’s financial commitment under the OER recognition program — not carbon credit market prices. They provide a science-backed reference point for procurement negotiations. The $20 benchmark for the Engaged level is a recommendation; the $20 and $80 benchmarks for Advanced and Leadership levels are mandatory requirements.

06 When will the Call for Evidence be launched?

V2.0 states only that SBTi intends to initiate the process. No timeline has been published. Monitor the SBTi website for updates.

The post SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard V2.0: An Industry Perspective on Biochar Carbon Removal appeared first on Beston Group.

Why Used Engine Oil Cannot Be Treated by Thermal Desorption?

Waste engine oil is a stream of pure, high-molecular-weight liquid hydrocarbons; compared to thermal desorption, this material is better suited to specialized distillation processes. Attempting to feed this liquid waste into a thermal desorption unit designed for solid materials would violate fundamental thermodynamic principles due to the following key limitations:

Other Materials That Cannot Be Processed by TDU Systems

What Raw Materials Are Truly Suitable for TDU Systems?

Oilfield Oil Sludge

Produced directly during crude oil extraction, oilfield oil sludge mainly consists of surface mud and floor waste. This material contains a high percentage of heavy oil and sticky wax tightly mixed with sand. Oil sludge pyrolysis plant excels at breaking these tough mixtures, completely separating the oil from the sand to recover high-value crude.

Tank Bottom Sludge

Collected from the bottom of oil tanks after years of storage, tank bottom sludge is very thick, heavy, and tightly packed. It contains heavy oil, wax sediments, and rust particles. Regular filtration or separation machines clog up immediately, making thermal desorption the reliable solution to separate and recover the oil.

Refining Sludge

Generated from downstream chemical processing, refining sludge consists of activated biological sludge combined with dissolved air flotation (DAF) solids. TDU smoothly dries and volatilizes this sticky, multi-phase material, minimizing dangerous volume while retrieving trapped organic oils.

Petrochemical-Contaminated Soils

Soils near chemical zones, pipeline leaks, or old gas stations are often heavily contaminated with toxic organic pollutants. Unlike incineration which completely destroys the soil quality, a TDU gently heats the material to evaporate the pollutants without damaging the soil itself.

The “Golden Selection Rules” for TDU Investors

To quickly evaluate whether your feedstocks match a thermal desorption unit, apply these four technical filters:

Note: Unsure about your material? If you are uncertain whether your specific oil sludge or oil-contaminated soil can be processed effectively, please feel free to consult the Beston Group technical team at any time for a professional feasibility assessment.

Conclusion

In the waste management sector, aligning the precise technology with specific material properties dictates project survival. Clearly defining technical boundaries is a testament to true engineering integrity. For processing complex industrial oil sludge, drill cuttings, or petrochemical-contaminated soils, pyrolysis plant remains your premier, field-proven choice. Contact our technical team today for a professional three-phase material analysis and a customized system configuration customized to your project.

The post Can Thermal Desorption Process Used Engine Oil? Limits and Capabilities of TDU Technology appeared first on Beston Group.

Why Is PET Not Used for Pyrolysis to Oil?

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) is unsuitable for standard pyrolysis due to its oxygen-rich ester linkages and aromatic benzene rings. PET pyrolysis has a low oil yield below 35% and generates solid-forming byproducts such as Terephthalic Acid and Benzoic Acid. These compounds rapidly crystallize in cooling zones, choking pipelines and creating dangerous overpressure risks.

Pyrolysis Feedstock Thresholds: PET ≤ 5% by weight

Why Is PVC Not Used for Pyrolysis to Oil?

PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) is strictly prohibited in conventional plastic pyrolysis, as it contains 57% chlorine by weight. At high temperatures, PVC decomposes and releases large amounts of hydrogen chloride (HCl), a highly corrosive and toxic gas. Therefore, pyrolysis of PVC poses severe health risks to personnel, causes heavy corrosion to reactors and leads to poor economic benefits.

Pyrolysis Feedstock Thresholds: PVC ≤ 1% by weight (ideally 0%)

Quick Reference: PVC vs. PET Pyrolysis Compatibility Analysis

The following structured matrix outlines the distinct chemical behaviors and operational hazards of PVC and PET compared to ideal pyrolysis feedstocks:

Summary for Industrial Operators

Plastic pyrolysis is an elite technology for diverting plastic waste from landfills into valuable energy or chemical feedstock. However, attempting to process PVC or PET in a standard setup is a recipe for operational failure. By excluding these two materials and focusing your supply chain on clean, source-separated PP, PE, and PS, you guarantee clean emissions, extend the service life of your machinery, and optimize your plant’s oil output.

The post Why PET and PVC Are Not Suitable for Pyrolysis? appeared first on Beston Group.

Rubberwood Waste: An Undervalued Industrial Feedstock

Global Production Scale

According to IRSG and FAOSTAT data, the total planted area of natural rubber trees worldwide is approximately 14.1 million hectares, with over 70% concentrated in five key Asian producing regions:

• Thailand: 3.118 million hectares, annual production of 4.789 million tonnes, the largest producer and exporter globally;
• Indonesia: 3.639 million hectares, annual production of 2.262 million tonnes;
• Vietnam: 0.977 million hectares, annual production of 1.327 million tonnes;
• China: 1.159 million hectares, annual production of 0.878 million tonnes;
• Malaysia: 1.073 million hectares, annual production of 0.387 million tonnes.

Rubberwood Life Cycle and Waste at Each Stage

Rubber trees begin latex tapping 6–7 years after planting, and their economic lifespan typically lasts 25–30 years. When latex yields decline and the cost of continued tapping exceeds the benefit, plantation owners inevitably start staggered harvesting. The harvested rubberwood then enters the wood processing value chain. Rubberwood waste is mainly generated during two stages: harvesting and processing:

Why Rubberwood an Excellent Feedstock for Carbon Removal Projects?

Biochar projects face two recurring obstacles in international markets: deforestation risk in compliance audits, and feedstock supply uncertainty. Here is how rubberwood compares to other biomass feedstocks on both fronts.

1. Sidestepping Deforestation Risk

• Agricultural commodity classification: EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) classifies natural rubber as an agricultural commodity, not a forestry resource. This places rubber plantations under “agricultural land use” rather than “forest harvesting,” avoiding the most common compliance pitfall for biomass projects.
• Land use continuity: Puro.earth and Isometric audit whether a project causes land use change (LUC). Replanting a rubber plantation is a crop renewal on the same agricultural plot — not a conversion of forestland. This satisfies the “continuously managed agricultural system” requirement at a foundational level.

---

2. Stable Feedstock Supply

• Predictable supply: Rubber trees have a 25–30 year biological cycle. Plantations typically incorporate replanting into long-term capital expenditure plans. Consequently, feedstock volumes can be projected up to 10 years ahead using historical records. This predictability is uncommon in CDR field.
• Dual-industry base: The rubber tree serves two independent industrial demands — latex for the tire industry during its productive years, and timber for furniture and construction at end of life. Because these demand streams are largely decoupled, feedstock supply is less exposed to any single market downturn.

Implementation Process for Rubbewood Biochar Carbon Removal Projects

3 Key Challenges in Project Development

Ready to Explore Rubberwood CDR?

The voluntary carbon market is rapidly developing, with increasing demand for high-quality biochar carbon removal (CDR). Rubberwood offers advantages such as stable supply, high compliance, and processing infrastructure lacking in most biomass feedstocks. First movers will have a competitive advantage. Beston Group is actively supporting rubberwood carbon removal projects. If you are exploring this area, we would love to connect with you.

The post The Carbon Removal Potential of Rubberwood appeared first on Beston Group.

Tire Fires: Three Deadly Mechanisms That Make Them Nearly Impossible to Extinguish

How Burning Tires Destroy Soil and Water

While the thick black smoke from a tire fire looks terrifying, the worst damage happens silently underground. The extreme heat melts solid rubber back into its original liquid chemical form, turning an unprotected tire dump into a massive pool of toxic oil.

Global Legislation Restricts Raw Tire Storage

Recognizing that open tire dumps are severe environmental hazards, international environmental protection agencies have enacted strict new laws to eliminate large tire storage yards. Over the past few months, the focus of global waste policy has shifted toward a zero-tolerance approach regarding long-term tire stockpiles.

Beston Group’s Continuous Pyrolysis Solutions: Turning Tire Hazards into Value

While open tire fires are an environmental disaster, Beston Group’s tyre pyrolysis technology tames the fire. Our system processes old tires in a fully sealed, oxygen-free reactor. Without oxygen, the tires cannot burn or explode. Instead, indirect heat safely breaks down the rubber into valuable materials with zero open flames, zero toxic smoke, and zero soil pollution.

High-Quality Pyrolysis Oil

Inside sealed steel heat exchangers, tire vapors cool down instantly into premium pyrolysis oil—a high-energy liquid fuel with excellent calorific value. Beyond its direct use in heavy industries like cement plants and steel mills, this valuable oil serves as a premium feedstock. It can be further distilled and refined into high-market-value naphtha or non-standard diesel, opening up highly profitable opportunities in the petrochemical and fuel markets.

Carbon Black & Steel

The remaining solids, carbon black and steel wires, are discharged through fully enclosed, water-cooled screw conveyors to safely stop dust. After automatic steel separation, the carbon charcoal can be further milled and refined into high-value Recovered Carbon Black (rCB). This highly profitable, eco-friendly material is widely used to replace expensive virgin carbon black in rubber and plastics manufacturing.

Clean Combustible Gas

The gases that cannot be turned into liquid pass through a strict scrubbing system to remove harmful sulfur. This clean gas is then routed right back to feed the furnace burners, creating a self-sustaining energy loop that produces no black smoke.

Conclusion

Open-air tire fires are catastrophic environmental disasters that highlight the danger of leaving industrial waste untreated. Landfilling and open storage are no longer acceptable options under modern environmental laws. By utilizing enclosed, fully continuous pyrolysis systems, modern industry can safely recycle these tough rubber wastes, protecting precious groundwater resources and turning dangerous black pollution into sustainable assets.

The post The Tire Fire Crisis: Why They Burn for Months and Poison Underground Water appeared first on Beston Group.

Understanding MRV: Measurement, Reporting and Verification

In carbon removal projects, every credit issued is only as credible as the data behind it. MRV — Measurement, Reporting and Verification — is the framework that turns raw production data into auditable evidence, and ultimately into tradeable carbon assets.

• Measurement: At the production stage, this covers feedstock dry and wet weight, reactor zone temperatures, energy and fuel consumption of biochar machine, biochar output and flue gas conditions — the raw inputs for all downstream carbon accounting.
• Reporting: Raw production data is structured according to the methodology specified by registries such as Puro.earth and Isometric. It spans feedstock compliance records, production logs and life cycle assessment (LCA).
• Verification: An independent third party reviews submitted reports against on-site source records to confirm data accuracy and methodology compliance — and determines whether carbon credits can be issued.

Traditional MRV Vs. dMRV

Why Do You Need dMRV?

dMRV Across the Biochar CDR Project Lifecycle

The value of a biochar carbon removal project depends on a complete and verifiable data chain. At the core of that chain is a life cycle assessment (LCA) that quantifies net CO₂-eq removal across every project stage. Using Puro.earth’s methodology as an example:

Every variable in this formula maps to a specific stage in the project lifecycle. The following five stages show how dMRV captures and validates the data behind each one.

1. Feedstock Sourcing & Transportation

• Geo-verification: The system automatically records GPS coordinates and a timestamp, confirming that feedstock origins meet registry requirements on sustainable sourcing, protected areas and deforestation.
• Feedstock Identity: Field operators photograph, categorise and weigh incoming feedstock on-site, generating a traceable identity record for each batch.
• Transport Emissions Accounting: Journey distance / fuel consumption is entered via mobile or pulled from a connected logistics system. It automatically allocated to the transport emissions of the LCA model.

---

2. Biochar Production

• Real-Time Process Monitoring: The dMRV system connects to the pyrolysis plant’s PLC via Modbus or MQTT. It continuously captures reactor zone temperatures, residence time and energy consumption.
• Production Emissions Monitoring: The system tracks pyrolysis gas flow and combustion conditions. Anomalies exceeding methodology thresholds are flagged before affecting carbon accounting outputs.
• Laboratory Data Integration: An accredited laboratory periodically tests H/C molar ratio (below 0.70), impurity levels and heavy metal content. Reports feed directly into the carbon accounting formulas.

---

3. Biochar Transportation

• Outbound Weighing & Electronic Waybill: The outbound scale records dry-basis weight directly in dMRV. The system generates a digital waybill for each shipment.
• In-Transit Monitoring: Driver delivery confirmations or vehicle GPS data allow the system to calculate transport energy consumption. This keeps the mass balance intact and prevents double-counting.

---

4. Biochar End-Use & Sequestration

• Digital Proof of Application: The end user confirms receipt via a digital terminal and uploads geo-tagged site photos or supporting documentation.
• Batch Locking: The system links the end-use confirmation to the corresponding production batch ID, preventing the same batch from being claimed more than once.
• Cascading Use Tracking: For biochar passing through multiple application stages, operators upload proof of destination at each stage. The system links these records to meet registry requirements on reversal risk.

---

5. Carbon Credit Issuance

• dMRV System: The system compiles monitoring data and calculation outputs into a structured report package for submission.
• Registry API: The package is transmitted to the registry through a dedicated dMRV API integration. It enables automated data flow into the certification process.
• Registry Backend: Following third-party verification, the registry triggers the issuance process and allocates credits to the project developer’s account.

How to Choose the Right dMRV System?

For biochar project developers, the choice of dMRV system directly affects both regulatory compliance and the speed of carbon asset monetisation. The following four criteria are the key factors to evaluate.

Toward a Trustworthy Carbon Market

The shift toward dMRV represents more than a technical upgrade — it reflects a fundamental change in how biochar carbon removal projects establish credibility in the market. As registry standards continue to tighten, the ability to produce traceable, verifiable data across the full project lifecycle is becoming a baseline requirement rather than a differentiator. Beston Group builds this capability directly into its biochar production systems, giving project developers a clear path from physical output to certified carbon assets.

The post Digital MRV for Biochar CDR: A Project Developer Guide appeared first on Beston Group.