Technology Comparison
Pyrolysis vs. incineration
& gasification:
The data center-grade comparisons
Data center buyers don't buy promises. They buy electrons that clear permitting, scrutiny, and power real operations.
Emissions profile (NOx,
particulates, dioxins, etc.)
Carbon intensity and
carbon-negative potential
Permitting difficulty and
community perception
Category
Technology Comparison
Pyrolysis vs. Incineration vs. Gasification — Key Differentiators
Pyrolysis
Oxygen-free thermal conversion
No combustion
Closed-loop design
Non-combustion pathway reduces typical
combustion byproducts
Proven in strict airsheds
(e.g., South Coast AQMD)
Technology Approach
Residues: ash vs. biocarbon
Efficiency and output flexibility
Lifecycle emissions reduction potential via biocarbon outcomes and project structures
Supports multiple credit pathways depending on market and offtake
Produces biocarbon
(stable carbon product)
Stronger permitting posture in many jurisdictions due to non-combustion pathway
Better community optics than “burning waste.”
Proven in tough regulatory environments
Flexible outputs: electricity + biocarbon
Designed for dispatchability and monetization options
Incineration
Combustion-based (burning)
“Waste burning” category optics
Typically, higher permitting friction
Higher scrutiny for criteria pollutants and
combustion byproducts
Greater public opposition risk
Typically harder to substantiate lifecycle emissions benefits
Carbon accounting is often complicated by combustion profile and residues
Produces ash and residues that can raise disposal and perception issues
Highest NIMBY risk
Often longer permitting timelines and higher litigation risk
Often centered on heat/electricity; limited flexibility
Harder to optimize for multiple revenue pathways
Gasification
Partial oxidation / controlled oxygen environment
Often still treated as combustion-adjacent, depending on configuration and regulators
Can carry similar community/permitting challenges
Emissions profile varies widely by design
Often faces heightened scrutiny due to category ambiguity
Can improve carbon profile vs. incineration in some designs
Claims often depend on downstream handling and verification
Produces slag/char depending on configuration; handling varies
Often misunderstood; can be categorized similarly to combustion in public perception
Permitting varies, but category ambiguity is a risk
Can support fuels depending on the configuration
Complexity can increase operational and permitting risk
Why it matters for
data centers
✓ Permitting risk = schedule risk
✓ Community optics = developer risk
✓ Emission proof = investor and customer comfort
✓ Flexible outputs = better unit economics
✓ Dispatchable power = better uptime posture
If your campus needs reliable power without added PR challenges, non-combustion is an advantage.