Who it serves
CTOs, process teams, technology developers, and technical diligence leads
Pathway screening, process selection, and pilot investment decisions
Service 02 / Translation
Cost and carbon breakpoint analysis
Find the combinations of yield, energy, lifetime, and selling price that make a process viable or rule it out.
Techno-economic and life-cycle analysis
A research service at Envirotech Accelerator, founded by James Scott. The KRYOS Hypercube approach connects evidence, technical challenge, and the next test; each project defines its qualified reviewers and validation requirements.
Which technical improvement changes both the production cost and the climate result?
How the research moves
Examine. Compare. Test.
- 01
Rebuild a transparent techno-economic and life-cycle screening model using measured values where available.
- 02
Stress-test correlated yield, uptime, energy, recovery, and price assumptions instead of relying on one optimistic case.
- 03
Translate the dominant breakpoints into technical targets and the experiments needed to test them.
What the lab receives
A decision you
can examine.
Connects laboratory targets to the economic and climate thresholds that matter for the next development stage.
- Reproducible cost and carbon model with source-linked assumptions
- Break-even surfaces and evidence-ranked technical targets
- Advance, revise, or hold recommendation with downside cases
Acceptance boundary
Screening is not a full independently verified life-cycle assessment or an investment opinion. No single cost forecast is treated as a guaranteed outcome.
Two ways a laboratory could apply this service
Potential pilot projects.
Hypothetical examples for planning a research review. They describe possible work, not completed engagements or reported results.
Potential pilot / 03Translation
Checking the full cost of a cell-free carbon pathway
A laboratory evaluating an enzyme cascade that converts carbon dioxide into a useful chemical intermediate.
Research stageConcept screening to bench validation
The laboratory question
Does the route remain plausible when energy, cofactors, enzyme replacement, and product recovery are included?
How the review could be applied
- Reconstruct the material and energy balance across the complete proposed route.
- Compare cost and climate results under linked yield, lifetime, and recovery assumptions.
- Translate the largest uncertainties into measurable bench targets.
Evidence the lab would provide
- Reaction balances, measured yields, and activity-retention data
- Cofactor supply or regeneration assumptions and utility demand
- Separation requirements and a functionally comparable product baseline
Proposed deliverable
A transparent cost-and-carbon screening model and a ranked list of technical breakpoints.
Decision criteria
Continue only where plausible measured targets could satisfy the agreed cost and climate criteria. Carbon conversion alone would not establish atmospheric removal.
Potential pilot / 04Translation
Comparing two routes to a bio-based polymer
A materials laboratory choosing between two synthesis and recovery routes for the same polymer application.
Research stageBench process selection
The laboratory question
Which route could meet the required function with the more defensible delivered cost and climate balance?
How the review could be applied
- Use the same functional unit, quality requirement, and system boundary for both routes.
- Challenge allocation, recycling, utility, and selling-price assumptions that change the ranking.
- Identify which missing measurement could reverse the preferred route.
Evidence the lab would provide
- Measured yields, solvent and energy use, and recovery losses
- Equivalent performance, expected service life, and end-of-life assumptions
- Equipment basis, feedstock costs, and incumbent-product data
Proposed deliverable
A route comparison with cost and climate ranges, assumptions, and next-test priorities.
Decision criteria
Select a route only if its advantage survives reasonable downside cases and equivalent product performance. Otherwise, resolve the decisive evidence gap first.
Build the pilot around your laboratory’s current research decision.
Prepare a pilot brief