EO Feasibility Assessment Tool

Starts with the go/no-go checklist result, then adds anything bench data has already confirmed — measured current efficiency, observed byproduct formation, actual cell voltage behaviour over a run. A stream that passed the checklist on paper but hasn’t seen a bench trial yet scores lower here than one with real data behind it, because paper screening and measured performance aren’t the same level of confidence.

The cost case: your local electricity tariff, the concentration and target that drive specific energy consumption, and how that compares to the next-best alternative technology on a cost-per-kilogram-removed basis. This dimension is where a technically excellent case most often stalls, because it’s the one most sensitive to numbers that are easy to skip verifying — particularly tariff and electrode replacement cost.

Whether there’s an actual reason this has to happen — a permit limit, an enforcement timeline, a customer specification — versus a general desire for cleaner effluent. Projects with a specific, dated driver secure budget and move through approval faster than ones justified only by general environmental improvement, regardless of how sound the underlying engineering is.

Whether the site can actually run this once it’s installed: power capacity, an equalisation tank if the flow is variable, and staff who can read a cell-voltage trend and respond to it. This dimension gets skipped more often than any other in early feasibility work, and it’s one of the more common reasons a technically sound system underperforms in its first year.

Chloride content, flow variability, and how well the stream is actually characterised. A well-understood, low-chloride, steady stream carries less execution risk than a poorly sampled, chloride-rich, highly variable one — even if their chemistry screens identically on paper.