ZERO-XImpact
What we have shown

The record, in plain words.

This page is the long version of the record. The figure here is a design value: Jenja design specification. It is not a measurement, and nothing has been measured on Jenja. The table with feedstock, conditions and basis is in the evidence centre.

Up to 150 kg/h
Design specification for Jenja: throughput on wood pellets. This is a design figure rather than a campaign measurement, and it is shown here so the two are never confused.
How to read this record

What it supports, and what it does not.

What the record supports
  • The earlier X10 test unit was fed digestate pellets.
  • It produced fuel gas while doing so
  • It handled ash contents that stop conventional designs
  • It ran in a controlled industrial setting with named partners
What the record does not support
  • Any statement about how much electricity the gas becomes
  • Any availability figure, because a campaign is not a year of operation
  • Any per-tonne environmental result, because there is no full mass and energy balance
  • Any claim about powering a village, because no site deployment has happened
  • Any emissions figure, because no certified stack measurement exists

This is a controlled industrial test, not a commercial site. That distinction matters more than any individual figure on this page. What the campaign shows is that the process worked on hard fuel. What it cannot prove is how the machine performs in a place that depends on it.

What is next

The measurements that would change this page.

What is still to be proven
  • Electrical output and engine efficiency, measured. This is the single figure that would turn gas performance into a power claim.
  • A full mass and energy balance, per tonne of feedstock in and out, which is what a per-tonne environmental result would rest on.
  • Certified stack emissions, so that an emissions figure could be published rather than assumed.
  • Char yield and char characterisation, which is what pathway 5 depends on entirely.
  • Availability over a sustained period at a real site, which is what a reliability claim would need.
The technical version
    See the evidence centre →
    The rules behind this record

    Why these figures and no others.

    Two rules decide what appears on this page and what does not.

    Rule 1

    Campaign figures are not site figures

    Hours of operation in a controlled test are not an availability record. The two are always kept apart, because treating one as the other is the most common way a technology claim overstates itself.

    Rule 2

    Conditions travel with the number

    Feedstock, temperature and operating mode are stated with each figure. A measurement taken under one set of conditions is never quoted as if it applied to another.