Q&A

Why this Houston energy innovator created a spin-off company to focus on tire waste

Vibhu Sharma founded InnoVent Renewables to make a sustainable impact on tire waste. Photo courtesy

With over a billion cars currently on the road — each with four tires that will eventually end up discarded, one Houstonian is hoping to create the infrastructure to sustainably dispose of tire waste now and into the future.

Announced earlier this month, Vibhu Sharma founded InnoVent Renewables to establish production facilities that utilize a proprietary continuous pyrolysis technology that is able to convert waste tires, plastics, and biomass into fuels and chemicals.

In a Q&A with EnergyCapital, Sharma explains his plans to sustainably impact the tire waste space and his vision for his company.

EnergyCapital: Why did you decide to expand the InnoVent brand to focus on renewable energy?

Vibhu Sharma: InnoVent Technology has been developing and implementing projects in renewable energy, chemicals, and oil and gas. Project examples include an EV battery chemical project for a $9 billion chemical company, municipal solid waste (MSW) to biogas, and of course pyrolysis of waste tires, plastics and biomass. Renewable energy is the calling of our time, and with our expertise in this area, we felt strongly that we must do more. With 1 billion waste tires disposed of every year, we wanted to focus on this vast opportunity, which led us to create a spin-off company called InnoVent Renewables, in order to specifically focus on innovative technologies such as pyrolysis of waste tires. We received overwhelming response from our investors and partners, and we're on our way to the first commercial production facility.

EC: Can you describe the process of converting the materials into fuel? How does it work?

VS: At a high level the process involves shredding of tires into small cubes, which are then fed into the main pyrolysis reactor. They're pre-heated enroute to the reactor, using the pyrolysis gas that's generated in the reactor. The reactor operates at a high temperature, and in the absence of oxygen, and decomposes the tires into various components. These are then separated using various techniques. The gases are treated to remove any sulfur, and then used to preheat the shredded tires. The pyrolysis oil (pyoil), which is one of the main products, is condensed out.

The pyoil is further processed to separate out higher value aromatics, and the remaining pyoil is equivalent to off-road diesel or fuel oil, and can be sold directly. The aromatic stream can be further processed or sold directly. It makes a great feed for petrochemical plants, or carbon black plants.

There are two solid products as well. These are recovered carbon black (rCB) and steel wire. Steel wire is separated from the rCB mix and can be sold directly. The rCB is further processed through a series of steps resulting in a high-quality powder which can be used to make tires, making it a completely circular product.

EC: Tell me about your expansion plan. Where are you hoping to grow the company and why in those particular regions?

VS: Our immediate plan is to build and start our commercial production facility in Monterrey, Mexico. Monterrey happens to be home to nearly 50 million waste tires. We are located very close to where the source is. We will set up our initial production train there, and leave room to expand to multiple parallel trains at the same site or nearby sites.

We have our own engineering and operations team in Monterrey, and we have access to modern infrastructure and resources, as this is a fast-growing city of 6 million people. In addition, we have close proximity to Texas for product distribution. Our next step will be to establish production facilities in Texas. We are based in Texas. Texas also has access to at least 50 million tires in landfills all across the state, and the state is taking significant measures to address this issue. We are already engaging with various entities here to plan our expansion site. Meanwhile we have been receiving high levels of interest from counties in Florida, California, as well as international sites in India and the Middle East to set up production facilities there. There are one billion waste tires disposed of every year, it's a huge opportunity. Some of these expansion decisions will depend on support from state governments, access to tires, cost of setting up the facility, etc.

EC: Do you plan on raising investment funding to reach these goals? If not, how will you be funded?

VS: We are fully funded for our first production site in Mexico. Based on our cash flow projections, we should be able to self-fund expansions at that site, and eventually add additional production trains. In order to accelerate our expansion at other sites, we intend to raise funds, with support from different states/counties in the USA where we decide to expand, and with support from investors. We are also open to strategic partners that can team up with us for the expansion both internationally and domestically.

EC:  In the long term, what's the impact you hope to make?

VS: Each production train of 15,000 tons that recycles 1 million passenger tires per year, can reduce CO2 emissions by 80 million pounds per year. Over the next five years, our goal is to get that target to 150,000 tons of recycling, which is 800 million pounds of CO2 emission reduction. That's a good impact to have, and a great way to drive renewable energy forward.

------

This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

Trending News