Renewable Diesel and Biochar Plant Promises Jobs — but Questions Remain

A company called Carolina Renewable Products (CRP) has announced a $280 million plant in Orangeburg County, South Carolina, that will make renewable diesel and biochar from wood biomass and create roughly 155 jobs. The plan has been welcomed by state and local leaders as a win for rural jobs, forestry markets and cleaner fuels. At the same time, scientists and policy analysts say the real climate and farming benefits depend on feedstock sources, production methods and careful management of side effects. According to the Office of the South Carolina Governor, the project will serve as CRP’s U.S. headquarters and training hub and is expected to start operations in late 2026.

A Local Jobs Promise with a Green Twist

When Robert Bryan, CRP’s CEO, introduced the project, he framed it as a way to turn local wood waste into higher-value products while supporting farmers and foresters. “South Carolina has a rich forestry and agricultural tradition, and we are proud to harness that strength to fuel a cleaner, more resilient future,” he said in the company release. Local officials echoed that message: the governor’s office and the county council called the investment a boost for jobs and local supply chains. According to local reporting by the Columbia Business Report and the company release, the Coordinating Council for Economic Development approved job development credits and a $750,000 Closing Fund grant to assist site preparation.

The arithmetic of the announcement is straightforward on paper: $280 million in capital, 155 new jobs and a facility that will produce renewable diesel, biochar and wood vinegar from sustainably sourced wood biomass. A number of U.S. and international projects follow the same model: convert biomass through pyrolysis or hydroprocessing into a paraffinic blendstock (renewable diesel) and a solid carbon coproduct (biochar). The company says its fuel — sometimes called “ArborFuel” — is molecularly identical to petroleum diesel but with a lower carbon footprint when produced from waste wood. Reporting and the company’s own statements provide that outline; independent life-cycle analysis is needed to confirm overall climate benefits.

The local economic benefits are real: construction jobs, operations positions, and increased demand for feedstock can lift local mills, loggers and trucking firms. Those who spoke to the press praised the promise of steady work. But the bigger questions—about how “green” the fuel is, whether biochar will be used in ways that deliver climate and soil benefits, and whether sourcing wood at scale will put pressure on forests—need evidence from independent studies and transparent permitting documents.

What the Science Says About Renewable Diesel and Biochar

Two technical issues matter most: whether the renewable diesel actually lowers greenhouse gas emissions on a full life-cycle basis, and whether biochar is being produced and applied in ways that help soil, crops and long-term carbon storage.

Life-cycle carbon: Renewable diesel can cut greenhouse gas emissions compared with fossil diesel in many pathways, but results vary by feedstock and by whether indirect land-use change (ILUC) or upstream impacts are included. A range of peer-reviewed and government analyses show that hydroprocessed renewable diesel from waste oils or sustainably sourced woody residues can offer substantial savings; however, pathways that use crops grown on recently cleared land or displace other uses can greatly reduce or even eliminate those savings. A recent Argonne National Laboratory report that updates the GREET LCA model provides detailed pathway-by-pathway results and shows material differences depending on feedstock and processing assumptions. According to Argonne’s GREET updates, improvements in agricultural practices and data inputs have changed emissions results for some biofeedstocks in recent years.

Independent academic reviews reinforce that point. A life-cycle meta-study published in Environmental Science & Technology compared biodiesel and renewable diesel pathways and found that hydroprocessed renewable diesel often performs well in “well-to-wheels” comparisons, but the margin depends on feedstock source and co-product accounting. The technology can reduce emissions, but not automatically — feedstock choices and scale matter. “Claims about low carbon intensity must be backed by transparent LCA data and careful land-use accounting,” the literature emphasises.

Biochar: The solid carbon left over from pyrolysis or other thermochemical conversion — biochar — is not just a waste product. When applied to soil in appropriate amounts and forms, biochar can improve soil structure, increase water retention, and lock carbon into stable forms that decay slowly over decades to centuries. A global assessment and several meta-analyses show promising average effects: one global assessment published in 2024 found consistent increases in soil organic carbon and often higher crop yields after biochar application, although results vary by soil type, climate and feedstock. Another dataset study in Nature’s data journal documented large variability but overall positive effects on crop yields and carbon stocks across many experiments. According to those peer-reviewed assessments, long-term and site-specific trials are essential to get reliable local results.

But there are caveats. The magnitude of climate benefit from biochar depends on: (1) how much fossil fuel displacement the renewable diesel achieves, (2) whether biochar is sequestered long-term in stable soil pools, (3) the energy balance of the production process, and (4) potential trade-offs such as nutrient lock-up or contamination if feedstock contains treated wood or chemical residues. Reviews published in Frontiers and other journals urge careful feedstock control and long-term monitoring to make sure biochar applications deliver net benefits rather than shifting emissions or harming soil life. A 2023 Frontiers review and newer 2025 meta-analyses highlight the upside of degraded soils and the need for measured expectations on highly fertile soils.

Concerns and Practical Lessons

Company leaders see opportunity; elected officials see jobs and investment; nearby workers see new chances for steady employment. Those are genuine and important. But farmers, conservation groups and independent researchers often raise the important counter-questions: where will the wood come from, how will the company ensure that forests aren’t being overharvested, and who benefits if feedstock prices rise?

Those concerns matter because the sustainability case for a plant that turns wood into fuel and biochar depends on local details — whether feedstock is low-value waste (mill residues, logging slash), whether harvest rates exceed regrowth, and whether supply chains avoid incentivising conversion of natural forests to plantations. The company has said the feedstock will be “sustainably sourced” and has highlighted a modular, cost-effective design. Independent verification — public permitting documents, transparent sourcing policies, third-party audits and clear life-cycle emissions figures — will be the pieces that local citizens and regulators should watch for during the permitting and construction phases. Local reporting and company statements note the commitment but do not replace independent verification.

For communities considering similar projects, there are practical lessons from past plants elsewhere. First, insist on a clear supply-chain plan that prioritises true waste streams and limits any pressure on native forests. Second, require monitoring and public reporting of greenhouse-gas performance using established LCA tools (for example, GREET). Third, set up pilot programs for biochar testing with local farmers, so applications are adapted to local soils and crops before large-scale spreading. Finally, use job training funds and local hiring agreements to ensure the jobs created flow to local workers and that the workforce gains durable skills for the low-carbon economy.

What to Watch Next — and Actionable Advice

This CRP project will move from announcement to permitting, procurement and construction over the coming months. Key documents to check are the local permit filings, any environmental assessments, the company’s feedstock procurement policy, and third-party LCA studies that quantify the facility’s net greenhouse-gas impacts. Ask for clear, dated commitments on feedstock sourcing and public access to emissions data. Communities and reporters should push for independent verification rather than relying solely on company claims. The state’s economic development materials and press releases are a useful starting point, but they do not replace technical review.

For policymakers and practitioners who want to make projects like this more beneficial, concrete steps include: require binding sourcing standards in incentive agreements, make job-training commitments enforceable, fund independent soil trials for biochar use on local crops, and require regular public LCA updates as operations scale. Scientists can help by designing transparent monitoring frameworks that link feedstock origin, energy inputs, and final product use to net climate impacts. Several recent authoritative studies and government LCA updates provide the methods and baseline values needed to do this work rigorously. According to Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET work and peer-reviewed LCA literature, pathway details change the climate calculus substantially — so the numbers should be public and revisited as real operating data arrive.

Conclusion

This announcement is not a simple “good” or “bad” story. It is an experiment in turning local biomass into jobs, fuel and long-lived carbon. The initial signs are promising for Orangeburg County: an investment, training hub, and new positions. To make that promise hold, the next chapters must include transparent data, independent evaluation, and clear community benefits — otherwise, the long-term costs could outweigh the short-term wins.