Start with the problem rather than the technology. Each route below leads to the pathway that addresses it, and each one says plainly how far that pathway has actually got.
No reliable supply, or a diesel generator you have to keep fuelling and guarding against price movements.
Pathway 1. Jenja has not yet run at a site, and its electrical output has not yet been measured. No engine test has been completed. Read it →
Water that is not safe to drink, or produce that spoils because there is no cold chain.
Pathway 2. Jenja has not yet run at a site, and its heat output has not yet been measured. Read it →
A fuel bill you do not control, on energy you would rather produce from what you already hold.
Pathway 3. Jenja has not yet run at a site, and its power and heat output have not yet been measured. Read it →
Residue that costs you money to get rid of, with the easy routes closing and a regulatory deadline on the horizon.
Pathway 4. Jenja has not yet run at a site. Read it →
A climate commitment you have to report on, and a wish to hold carbon in a solid rather than release it.
Pathway 5. Jenja has not yet run at a site. Whether it leaves a carbon-rich char, and how much, has not been measured. Read it →
We cannot tell you whether a pathway is real for you without these four. With them, we can tell you whether it is something we can support, and be straight with you if it is not.
The same tonne of residue can have very different environmental implications depending on where it would otherwise go. That is why we ask for it first, and why we do not quote a saving before we know it.
If that route is already a good one, the honest answer may be that this technology does not improve it much. We would rather say that early than produce a number that does not survive review.
If you want a number rather than a brochure, this is what we need to produce one. These are the inputs to a site assessment, and they are the same inputs the methodology page describes.
What you get back. An honest read on whether a pathway is real for your site, what would have to be measured to prove it, and what we do not yet know. If the answer is that we cannot support it, we will say that rather than round the case up.
Feedstock, location, current treatment and the outcome you want. Four lines is enough to start.
What happens to your material today, and what your energy costs you today. No baseline means no claim, so this comes first.
Which pathway applies, how far it has actually got, and which measurements are missing for your case specifically.
With the site known and the outputs measured, a figure has a basis. Until then it would be a guess dressed as a result.