Catalyst with Shayle Kann

Episode: Ag residue and carbon removal
Date: September 25, 2025
Guest: Peter Reinhardt, CEO & Co-founder of Charm Industrial
Host: Shayle Kann

Brief Overview

In this episode, Shayle Kann dives into the challenges and opportunities of using agricultural residues (“ag residue”) and woody biomass for carbon removal. His guest is Peter Reinhardt, CEO and co-founder of Charm Industrial—a pioneering company in bio-oil injection for carbon sequestration. They explore the real-world complexity of ag residue logistics, the potential of transforming waste into valuable carbon sinks, and the evolving landscape of permanent carbon removal markets.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Understanding Ag Residue: Scale & Definitions

[04:11–06:54]

• Definition and Terminology:
  • Peter Reinhardt explains that what’s often called "waste" agricultural residue is more accurately “underutilized” biomass, with considerable untapped value.
    • "For the most part when you have ag residues, it’s mostly things that are unutilized or very underutilized… maybe that is going to waste or getting lost." – Peter [04:24]
• Scale in the U.S.:
  • U.S. corn stover is a massive underutilized resource—roughly 400 million dry tons per year just from corn, most of which decomposes on the field and releases CO₂.
• Regional Practices:
  • How stover is treated varies geographically:
    • In some regions, it's left to retain soil moisture or prevent erosion.
    • In others (colder north) it must be removed to enable spring planting.

2. The Logistics and Economics of Biomass Aggregation

[07:56–13:52]

• Complex Supply Chain:
  • Moving biomass from field to central processing is costly and labor-intensive, requiring multiple machines and steps (windrowing, baling, stacking, loading, transporting).
    • "It’s quite an operation ... and there’s some companies that do an incredible job of this, like Pacific AG, but yeah, it’s tough, isn’t it?" – Peter [09:53]
  • Centralized plants struggle economically, often paying farmers little compared to the high cost of collection and transport.
• Pricing and Measurement Challenges:
  • Delivered biomass is priced per “bone dry ton,” but actual weight is affected by residual water and non-valuable material, further complicating logistics.
  • For light, fluffy biomass like stover, the limiting factor is volume rather than weight; for wood, water content is a bigger factor.
    • "When you’re trying to transport stover, you cube out … a lot faster than you weigh out… It’s so fluffy." – Peter [10:59]
• Feedstock Heterogeneity:
  • Quality varies; odd materials can end up in the feedstock (rocks, even "a handgun in a bale"). Processing at scale requires systems to manage edge cases, particularly problematic in mass operations.

3. The On-field Solution: Charm’s Approach

[13:52–19:56]

• The “Mobile Pyrolysis” Model:
  • Charm’s thesis: Centralized aggregation doesn’t work at scale for distributed, heterogeneous biomass.
    • "You can’t bring biomass to market in its broadly heterogeneous, highly distributed, fluffy current existing capacity. You just can’t do it." – Peter [14:56]
  • Instead, Charm deploys mobile pyrolysis equipment onto the field, densifying the biomass by converting it to bio-oil and biochar.
    • "The density of bio-oil: 1,200 kilograms per meter cubed … more than a 10x in terms of consolidation." – Peter [15:52]
  • This enables inexpensive transport and storage, turning low-density plant residues/fluffy bales into dense, pumpable liquids.
• Economies of Scale in Pyrolysis:
  • Scaling up mobile pyrolysis units from 2 to 20 tons/day offers substantial efficiencies but building too large (fixed) plants reintroduces logistical risks and cost jumps.
    • "We are already less than half of [the capex per ton] cost compared to state-of-the-art pyrolysis facilities, and that will decline drastically as we increase the throughput." – Peter [18:38]
  • Pyrolysis is somewhat unique in not benefitting as much from scale as classic chemical plant processes, due to heat transfer constraints.

4. Highest and Best Use of Biomass: Energy vs. Carbon

[22:27–25:36]

• Traditional Uses:
  • Historically, biomass has been burned for industrial heat or used for electricity and ethanol—uses that don’t fully utilize its carbon value.
    • "These are not actually very good uses for biomass. They don’t really take advantage of the best properties that biomass has." – Peter [22:58]
    • "On a per kg basis, the energy content of biomass is about one third that of crude oil. So it’s pretty energy poor. What’s interesting about it is ... it’s very carbon rich." – Peter [23:09]
• Modern High-Value Uses:
  • Biomass as a carbon-rich feedstock is better suited for:
    • Carbon removal (bio-oil injection, biochar)
    • Ironmaking (chemical reduction)
    • Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF)
    • Material production (asphalt, plastics)
  • World Resources Institute and others agree: Direct carbon removal may provide the highest impact, though practical market maturity has lagged.

5. Carbon Markets and Demand for CDR (“Carbon Dioxide Removal”)

[26:42–35:13]

• Market Evolution and Buyer Trust:
  • Historically, the voluntary carbon offset market was murky and not transparent.
  • Charm distinguishes itself through extreme transparency:
    • "You can go to the website … and see a complete history of every delivery, where the biomass came from and so on." – Peter [29:28]
  • Reinhardt’s goal is “FedEx style delivery history” for every carbon removal ton.
• Broader Appeal via Co-benefits:
  • Buyers respond not just to climate benefits, but ancillary benefits: wildfire risk reduction, orphan well cleanup, and overall community and health impact.
• Demand Growth Areas:
  • Most CDR market volume comes from big tech (Microsoft, Stripe/Frontier, Shopify, Google).
  • Other sectors expanding: banking/financial, consulting, advanced manufacturing (e.g., aircraft, chips, pharma).
    • "We see a lot of activity in banking, financial services. We see a lot of activity in consulting … and more in advanced manufacturing." – Peter [33:45]
  • Companies with high EBITA per ton of emissions are likely to lead in CDR purchasing, as it becomes more economic than deep decarbonization in some use cases.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Biomass Logistics:
  • "If you’re looking at getting corn stover, say delivered to... a cellulosic ethanol plant, they expected to pay maybe $60 a ton. They found in fact they were paying like north of $120 a ton. And ... the actual dollars [...] to the farmer [...] was maybe in the low tens of dollars. And all the rest of it was bundled up in the consolidation and transport of the biomass." – Peter [09:22]
• On Centralization vs. Field Processing:
  • "Our fundamental thesis is, can we go out into the field with pyrolysis equipment and consolidate that biomass by removing a bunch of stuff that isn’t useful... and can we increase the density dramatically?" – Peter [15:07]
• On the Value of Carbon:
  • "What really distinguishes biomass is...it’s very carbon-rich. And so the use cases that rely either on the chemical availability of carbon or... on the amount of carbon in there, those are the use cases that have the highest and best use over time." – Peter [23:09]
• On Carbon Markets and Transparency:
  • "The deeper I got into that, the more I was like, this is bad. This is really bad. There’s no clarity on it, there’s no trail of evidence, there’s no FedEx style delivery history of what happened there." – Peter [29:09]
  • "If their goal is having a positive impact with these kinds of purchases, there’s just more there on the bone as opposed to, you know, some other approaches often have tradeoffs in this sense." – Peter [33:08]
• On Buyer Motivation:
  • "Our underlying motivation for corporates is impact and they want to trust that that impact is actually happening in like a measurable way." – Peter [32:34]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [04:11] – Introduction to Ag Residue: definitions, scale, and geographic nuances
• [07:56] – The practical challenges of aggregating, moving, and using ag residue
• [13:52] – The case for on-field processing and Charm’s mobile pyrolysis solution
• [19:44] – How pyrolysis scales, and why mobile units outperform centralized plants for diverse residues
• [22:27] – What should ag residue actually be used for? Comparing energy vs. carbon uses
• [26:42] – The CDR market: how Charm built buyer trust and demand for permanent carbon removal
• [33:45] – Which industries are embracing CDR and why; forward outlook for carbon removal buyers

Tone & Style

The conversation is open, practical, and often humorous, with Shayle and Peter balancing clear-eyed skepticism about technical and economic “gotchas” with optimism for new paths forward. Peter’s background as both a software founder and a CDR buyer gives him a unique, buyer-focused vantage on industry problems.

For New Listeners

If you’re new to the concept of using agricultural residue for carbon removal, this episode provides a sharp, insider view into:

• Why most ag biomass goes unused, and why that’s a climate problem and opportunity
• The nitty-gritty challenges of collecting and densifying biomass
• How new business models (like Charm’s mobile pyrolysis) could change the game
• Why the future of carbon removal markets depends on trust, transparency, and tangible co-benefits

Guest

Peter Reinhardt
Co-founder & CEO, Charm Industrial

For more, explore Charm's transparent delivery ledger at charmindustrial.com/ledger and follow Latitude Media for future episodes.