There is a more recent version of this protocol - view it for the latest updates.
Biogenic Carbon Capture and Storage
Loading...
This Protocol provides the requirements and procedures for the calculation of net CO2 equivalent (CO2e)removals from the atmosphere via Industrial Process Biogenic Carbon Capture and Storage (Biogenic Bio-CCS). This Protocol is developed for application to Biogenic Bio-CCS processes or combinations of processes (e.g., solid sorption,1, liquid solvent,2, membrane processes,3, electrochemistry,4, etc.) in which a cradle-to-graveGHG Statement can be accurately applied and in which the CO2 captured is stored withvia physical5 or chemical6 trapping mechanisms for >1000 years durability.
The Protocol ensures:
Specific standards and Protocolsprotocols which are utilized as the foundation of this Protocol and for which this Protocol is intended to be fully compliant with are as follows:
Additional reference standards that inform the requirements and overall practices incorporated in this Protocol include:
This Protocol was developed based on the current state of the art and publicly available science regarding Biogenic Bio-CCS.7,8,9 As Biogenic Bio-CCS is still a developing approach to CO2carbon dioxide removal (CDR) with ever-expanding published literature, this Protocol incorporates requirements that may be more stringent than other available regulations or Protocols. The approach taken here may be altered in future versions of the Protocol in-line with advancements in the available technology and published research.
This Protocol applies to projects anywhere that capture biogenic carbon at a point-source resulting from processing of an eligible biomass feedstock as outlined in the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module, and store this carbon with >1000 years durability via physical or chemical trapping mechanisms laid out in a relevant CO2 Storage Module (see Section 8)). Projects that capture CO2 that is not of biogenic origin are not eligible. A cradle-to-grave GHG Statement must also be able to be accurately applied to all processes within the scope of The Project.
See Section 2 of Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module for calculationeligibility guidelinescriteria.
The Project must consider environmental and social impacts and the Project Proponent must provide evidence that The Project will do no net environmental or social harm by complying with Section 3.7.1 of the Isometric Standard as well as the following requirements:
The following topics are covered briefly in this Protocol due to their inclusion in the Isometric Standard, which governs all Isometric Protocols. See in-text references to the Isometric Standard for further guidance.
For each specific Project to be evaluated under this Protocol, the Project Proponent must document projectProject characteristics in a Project Design Document (PDD) as outlined in Section 3.2 of the Isometric Standard. The PDD will form the basis for project verificationVerification and evaluation in accordance with this Protocol, and must include consideration of processes unique to Biogenic Bio-CCS, for example:
Projects must be validated and project net CO2e removals verified by an independent third party consistent with the requirements described in this Protocol as well as in Section 4 of the Isometric Standard.
The Validation and Verification Body (VVB) must consider following requisite components:
The threshold for Materiality, considering the totality of all omissions, errors and mis-statements, is 5%, in accordance with Section 4.3 of the Isometric Standard.
Verifiers should also verify the documentation of uncertainty of the GHG Statement as required by Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard. Qualitative Materiality issues may also be identified and documented, such as:712:
Project validation and verification must incorporate site visits to project facilities in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14064-3, 6.1.4.2, including, at minimum, site visits during validation and initial verification to the capture and storage site. ValidatorsVerifiers should whenever possible observe operation of the capture and storage processes to ensure full documentation of process inputs and outputs through visual observation and validation of instrumentation, measurements, and required data quality measures.
A site visit must thereafter occur at least once every 2 years at each location.
Verifiers and validatorsVVBs must comply with the requirements defined in Section 4 of the Isometric Standard. In addition, teams should maintain and demonstrate expertise associated with the specific technologies of interest, including solvent/sorbent chemistry, geological storage of CO2, electricity procurement and heat/power generation and the relevant CO2 storage technology.
Competency must be demonstrated through the below relevant sectoral scope accreditations, or through demonstration of relevant experience, in accordance with Isometric's VVB policy:
CO2 removalCDR via Biogenic Bio-CCS and subsequent storage is often a result of a multi-step process (such as capture, desorption, CO2 transport, CO2 temporary holding, the CO2 injection process, etc.), with activities in each step sometimes managed and operated by different operators, companies, or owners. When there are multiple parties involved in the process (e.g., injectionif sitecapture operatorsand storage are undertaken by different entities), and to avoid double counting of CO2e removals, a single Project Proponent must be specified contractually as the sole owner of the CO2e removalsCredits. Contracts must comply with all requirements defined in Section 3.1 of the Isometric Standard.
The Project Proponent must be able to demonstrate additionality through compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Isometric Standard. The baseline scenario and counterfactual utilized to assess additionality must be project-specific, and are described in Section 7.24 of this Protocol.
Additionality determinations should be reviewed and completed every five years (aligned with the Crediting Period), at a minimum, or whenever project operating conditions change significantly, such as the following:
Any review and change in the determination of additionality should not affect the availability of Carbon Finance and Verified Credits for the current or past Crediting Periods, but if the review indicates The Project has become non-additional, this will make The Project ineligible for future Credits.813.
The uncertainty in the overall estimate of the net CO2e removal as a result of The Project must be calculated and transparently presented. The total net CO2e removed over a Reporting Period ([math: RP]; see Section 7.2.15) for a Project, [math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP}], must be conservatively determined, based on the requirements outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.
Projects must report a list of all input variables used in the net CO2e removal calculation and their uncertainties, including:
The uncertainty information should at least include the minimum and maximum values of a variable. More detailed uncertainty information should be provided if available, as outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.
In addition, a sensitivity analysis that demonstrates the impact of each input parameter’s uncertainty on the final net CO2e uncertainty must be provided. Details of the sensitivity analysis method must be provided so that the results can be re-created. Parameters may be omitted from a full uncertainty analysis if a Sensitivity Analysis can demonstrate that the parameter contributes to <1% change in Removalremoval. For all other parameters, information about Uncertainty must be specified.
In accordance with Section 3.8 of the Isometric Standard, all evidence and data related to the underlying quantification of the net CO₂e removal will be available to the public through Isometric's platform. This includes:
The Project Proponent can request certain information to be restricted (only available to authorized Buyers, the Registry, and VVB) where it is subject to confidentiality. This includes emission factors from licensed databases. However, all other numerical data produced or used as part of the quantification of net CO2e removal will be made available.
Biogenic Bio-CCS systems are typically operated continuously, with captured CO2 being transported and durably stored using a variety of potential processes. Due to the continuous nature of Biogenic Bio-CCS systems, the equations used to calculate removals will pertain to all net emissions occurring over an interval of time. This unit of time is defined as the Reporting Period, [math: RP], which is the time period during which net CO2e removals are claimed by the Project Proponent and submitted for verification. The total net CO2e removal is written hereafter as [math: CO_2e_{Removal}].
GHG emission calculations must include all emissions related to the project activities that occur within the Reporting Period. This includes :
(i) any emissions associated with project establishment allocated to the Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.1) ,
(ii) any emissions that occur within the Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.2),
(iii) any anticipated emissions that would occur after the Reporting Period that have been allocated to the Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.3), and
(iv) leakage emissions that occur outside of the system boundary that are associated with the Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.4).
In line with the Isometric Standard, this Protocol requires that Removalremoval Credits are issued ex-post (after net Removalremoval from the atmosphere via Biogenic Bio-CCS has been achieved). Credits may be issued once CO₂ has been permanently stored in the identified storage reservoir.
The scope of this Protocol includes GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) associated with a Biogenic Bio-CCS projectProject.
A cradle-to-grave GHG Statement must be prepared encompassing the GHG emissions relating to the activities outlined within the system boundary.
GHG emissions and removals associated with The Project may be as direct emissions from a process or storage system, or as indirect emissions from combustion of fuels, electricity generation, or other sources. Emissions for processes within the system boundary must include all GHG SSRs from the construction or manufacturing of any project-specific physical site and associated equipment, closure and disposal of each site and associated equipment, and operation of each process, including embodied emissions of consumables in the process.
Any emissions from sub-processes or process changes that would not have taken place without the CDR projectProject must be fully considered in the system boundary. Biomass feedstock emissions must be calculated as outlined in the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module. This allows for accurate consideration of additional, incremental emissions induced by the carbon removal process.
The system boundary must include all SSRs controlled by and related to The Project, including but not limited to the SSRs in Figure 1 and Table 1. If any GHG SSRs within Table 1 are deemed not appropriate to include in the system boundary, they may be excluded provided that robust justification and appropriate evidence is provided.
Figure 1. Process flow diagram showing system boundary for Biogenic Bio-CCS projects[Image: Figure 1]
Table 1. Scope of activities to be included in the system boundary for Biogenic Bio-CCS projects
| Activity | GHG Source, Sink or Reservoir | GHG | Scope | Timescale of emissions and accounting allocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment of | Construction and installation | All GHGs | Equipment and materials manufacture, transport to site and construction site emissions. To include:
| Before project activities start - must be accounted for in the first Reporting Period or amortized in line with allocation rules (Section 7.6.3.1 |
| Initial surveys and feasibility studies | All GHGs | To include any embodied, energy use and transport emissions associated with surveys required for establishment of the project site. | ||
| Misc. | All GHGs | Any SSRs not captured by categories above. | ||
| Operations | Energy use | All GHGs | Energy consumption associated with | Over each Reporting Period - must be accounted for in the relevant Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.2) |
| Biomass feedstock sourcing and transport | All GHGs | Biomass | ||
| Consumables (other than feedstock) | All GHGs | Embodied emissions associated with consumables required for operation of the project site (excluding feedstock). | ||
| Waste processing | All GHGs | Waste processing and end-of-life disposal of components used within the process. | ||
| Sampling required for MRV | All GHGs | Sampling required for MRV, including transportation to collect samples, shipping of samples for laboratory analysis and sample processing. | ||
| Staff travel | All GHGs | Flight, car, train or other travel required for the project operations, including contractors and suppliers required on site. | ||
| Surveys | All GHGs | Equipment, energy use and transport associated with surveys e.g. ecological surveys. | ||
| CO₂ stored | CO₂ only | The gross amount of CO₂ removed and durably stored over a Reporting Period. | ||
| Maintenance of project site | All GHGs | To include actual or anticipated maintenance (lifecycle | ||
| Misc. | All GHGs | Any SSRs not captured by categories above. | ||
| End-of-Life | End-of-life emissions | All GHGs | To include anticipated end-of-life emissions (lifecycle | After Reporting Period - must be accounted for in the first Reporting Period or amortized in line with allocation rules (See Section 7.6.3.3) |
| Sampling required long term monitoring for MRV | All GHGs | Ongoing monitoring, including transportation to collect samples, shipping of samples for laboratory analysis and sample processing. | ||
| Long term ongoing monitoring and surveys | All GHGs | Anticipated equipment, energy use and transport associated with ongoing monitoring and surveys e.g. ecological surveys. | ||
| Misc. | All GHGs | Any emissions source, sink or reservoir not captured by categories above. |
The Project Proponent must consider all GHGs associated with SSRs, in alignment with the United States Environmental Protection AgencyEPA’s definition of GHGs, which includes: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorinated gasses such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). For CO₂ stored, only CO₂ shall be included as part of the quantification. For all other activities all GHGs must be considered. For example, the release of CO2, CH4, and N2O is expected during diesel consumption.
All GHGs must be quantified and converted to CO2e in the GHG Statement using the 100-yr Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the GHG of interest, based on the most recent volume of the IPCC Assessment Report (currently the Sixth Assessment Report).
Miscellaneous GHG emissions are those that cannot be categorized by the GHG SSR categories provided in Table 1. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities and must report any outside of the SSR categories identified as miscellaneous emissions.
Emissions associated with a projectProject's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of a projectProject must also be considered. This is covered under Leakage in Section 7.6.3.4.
Biogenic Bio-CCS facilities will typically produce marketable co-products, e.g. energy, in addition to conducting CO2 capture activities. The system boundary of a Biogenic Bio-CCS projectProject must include the full system as set out in Section 7.2, unless Eligibility Criteria are met which allow a more narrow system boundary to be drawn. Projects that meet at least one of the following Eligibility Criteria in Table 2 may draw a more narrow system boundary which only considers activities related to CCS.
Table 2. Eligibility Criteria for allowing a narrow system boundary for a Biogenic Bio-CCS project
| Description | Documentation required | |
|---|---|---|
| EC1 | The | Records of existing facility activities dating back 3 years. The GHG system boundary in this case is limited to materials and processes necessary for the retrofit and processes that directly contribute to the |
| EC2 | The | Documentation that the proposed facility has a positive Internal Rate of Return (IRR) even in the absence of carbon financing. Project Proponents must also provide documentation that CO2 removal is not required by law or common practice for similar new facilities. The GHG system boundary in this case is limited to processes that directly contribute to the |
| EC3 | The | Detailed analysis showing the expected reduction in grid emissions intensity. The GHG system boundary in this case is limited to materials and processes necessary for the retrofit and processes that directly contribute to the |
Emissions associated with activities, consumables, and equipment related to the CO2 capture, transportation and storage processes must always be included in the system boundary. In cases where The Project has demonstrated that the co-product facility is non-additional, univseraluniversal equipment may be excluded from the system boundary if The Project meets at least one eligibility criteria to qualify for a narrow system boundary (see Table 2). However, additional load imposed on any universal equipment by the operations of the CSSCCS process must be proportionally attributed within the system boundary.
Any energy use within the system boundary must be accounted for through the requirements set out in the Energy Use Accounting Module v1.2. In cases where projects exclude emissions associated with the production of an energy co-product, any reduction in the efficiency of the energy production as a result of the CDR process must be counted towards energy use of the CDR process.
Refer to Energy Use Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Ancillary activities, such as supplementary research and development activities and corporate administrative activities, that are associated with a projectProject but are not directly or indirectly related to the issuance of Credits can be excluded from the system boundary.
Biogenic Bio-CCS may have additional impacts on GHG emissions beyond the scope of this Protocol, that are not already associated with marketable co-products. For example, providing a source of secondary low carbon heat or electricity, avoiding landfill emissions and reducing waste transport emissions. These potential impacts are not included in this conservative GHG accounting framework.
The baseline scenario for a Biogenic Bio-CCS projectProject is dependent on whether the CCS aspect of The Project is part of a new-build facility, or a retrofit to an existing facility:
The counterfactual is theany CO2 stored in the biomass feedstock that would have remained durably stored in the biomass feedstock in the absence of The Project. This is known as ineligible biomass, givenin addition to any CO2 that would have been durably stored by the selected storage technology.
See Section 2.2 of Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module for calculationbiomass guidelinescounterfactual eligibility.
The following sections outline the process for calculating the net CO2e removed for each Reporting Period based on total mass stored during that period, written hereafter as [math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP}].
Net CO2e removal for a process utilizing Biogenic Bio-CCS must be calculated as follows for a Reporting Period, [math: RP]:
[math: CO_2e_{Removal} = CO_2e_{Stored}\ –\ CO_2e_{Counterfactual} -\ CO_2e_{Emissions}]
(Equation 1)
Where;
Note:It Reversalsshould be noted that any potential reversals of CO2 storage in the final storage location occur after Credits have been issued so are not included in this equation. See Sections 9.2 and Section 5.6 of the Isometric Standard for further information. Risk of reversal information is given in Appendix 1: Risk of Reversal Questionnaire, with further information provided within the relevant storage module storage module.
Type:Quantification Sequestration
of [math: CO_2e_{Stored}], representsmeasurements, and monitoring requirements for the amount of CO2 present in the CO2-containing injectant that is injected and stored in the geologic or engineered storage formation in a givendifferent [math: RP]. This is the gross mass stored and does not account for reversals of storage from the storage formation.
This can be calculated by using the mass injected and the average concentration of CO2 in the injectant over a given time period, summed across the whole [math: RP]:
[math: CO_2e_{Stored,\ RP} = \sum_{t=1}^{T} C_{mean, inj,t} \cdot m_{inj,t}]
(Equation 2)
Where:
See contentSection divided by the fraction of C in CO23.4 for dissolved CO2.
The mass of CO2-containing injectant, [math: m_{inj,t}], may either be directly measured using a mass flow meter, or may be indirectly measured by combining suitable volume and density measurements. In the latter case, the mass of injectant is calculated as:
[math: m_{inj,t} = V_{inj,t} \cdot \rho_{inj,t} ]
(Equation 3)
Where:
The density of the injectant may be measured either using a calibrated density meter, or may be indirectly measured by combining suitable pressure and temperature measurements. In the latter case, the density should be determined as a function of the pressure and temperature measurements by application of a suitable gas-phase equation of state model. Supporting information, including appropriate published scientific literature and/or internal empirical evidence, demonstrating the accuracy of the applied equation of state must be provided at the point of third party project verification.
Calculationcalculation of [math: CO_2e_{Stored}] requiresin twosaline primary measurementsaquifers.
Durability %wtand ofmonitoring CO2requirements for storage in the CO2 injection stream or %wt C within a carbonate solution divided by C content in CO2 (44/12); and
The concentration of CO2 in the gaseous, dissolved or supercritical CO2 stream must be:
See Section 4.2
The mass of injectant ([math: m_{Inj}]) is measured via use of a calibrated mass flow meter or volumetric flow meter and density measurements over a defined time interval (Δt). Preference is for high-accuracy flow meters such as coriolis or thermal mass flow meters, although other metering solutions are allowable. Flow metering must meet the following requirements:
In general, the Project Proponent must identify, highlight, and explain any data gaps or missing calibration data, if any occur. The Project Proponent must notify Isometric and the VVB when data gaps or missing calibration data occur and must clearly explain the approach taken and document the missing data within the GHG statement.
For those parameters where frequent, sub-hourly measurements are required (notably CO2 concentration measurements in the CO2 stream, and the measurement of mass of CO2 injected), the Project Proponent must adhere to the following procedure for handling missing data.
Where there are data gaps in measurement of the relevant parameter of up to 30 minutes, the Project Proponent may claim using an average quantity, based on the measurements proceeding and following the data gap.
Where there are such data gaps of longer than 30 minutes, the Project Proponent may apply this approach for up to a 30 minute period within the duration of the data gap, but no more than this. For the remainder of the period of the data gap, i.e. in excess of 30 minutes, no carbon dioxide removal may be claimed, due to a lack of data. In addition, data gaps must account for less than 5% of the data used for the removal calculation within a given Reporting Period, any missing data above this is also not creditable.
Where a calibration is missed, one must be completed as soon as this is noticed. For data collected between when the calibration was required and when it actually took place, a conservative estimate should be used agreed between the VVB, Project Proponent, and Isometric.
The project Proponent must maintain the following records as evidence of gross CO2 stored in injected CO2 or CO2-containing injectant:
See Section 75.42.1;
Records of all analyses and injections must be maintained byin the injectionbuilt facility or Project Proponent and provided for verification purposes for a minimum of five yearsenvironment.
Type: Counterfactual
As outlined in Section 7.4, Refer to both the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module and the relevant storage module for calculation of counterfactual storage.
See Section 3.1 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module for calculation requirements.
Type: Emissions
[math: CO_2e_{Emissions}] is is the total quantity of GHG emissions associated with the Reporting Period, [math: RP]. This can be calculated as:
[math: {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Emissions}^{}\ = \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Establishment}^{}\ + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Operations}^{} + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{End-of-life}^{}+ \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Leakage}^{}]
(Equation 32)
Where
The following sections set out specific quantification requirements for each variable.
GHG emissions associated with project establishment should include all historic emissions incurred as a result of project establishment, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1.
Project establishment emissions occur from the point of project inception up until the first Reporting Period. Establishment emissions may be accounted for in the following ways, with the allocation method selected and justified by the Project Proponent:
The anticipated lifetime of The Project should be based on reasonable justification and should be included in the Project Design Document (PDD) to be assessed as part of project validation.
Allocation of project establishment emissions to removals must be reviewed at each Crediting Period renewal and any adjustments made. If the Project Proponent is not able to comply with the allocation schedule described in the PDD, e.g. due to changes in delivered volume or anticipated project lifetime, the Project Proponent must notify Isometric as early as possible in order to adjust the allocation schedule for future removals. If that is not possible, the Reversalreversal process will be triggered in accordance with the Isometric Standard, to account for any remaining emissions.
GHG emissions associated with [math: CO_2e_{Operations}] must include all emissions associated with operational activities, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1.
[math: CO_2e_{Operations}] emissions occur over the Reporting Period for the deployment being Credited and are applicable to the current deployment only. [math: CO_2e_{Operations}] emissions must be attributed to the Reporting Period in which they occur. Allocation may be permitted in certain instances, on a case by case basis in agreement with Isometric.
[math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life}] includes all emissions associated with activities that are anticipated to occur after the Reporting Period, but are directly or indirectly related to the Reporting Period. For example, this could include ongoing sampling activities for MRV for the specific deployment (directly related), or end-of-life emissions for the project facility (indirectly related to all deployments).
GHG emissions associated with [math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life}] may occur from the end of the Reporting Period onward, and typically through to completion of project site deconstruction and any other end-of-life activities.
GHG emissions associated with activities that are directly related to each deployment must be quantified as part of that Reporting Period. GHG emissions associated with activities that are indirectly related to all deployments may be allocated in the same ways as set out in [math: CO_2e_{Establishment}].
Given the uncertain nature of [math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life}] emissions, assumptions must be revisited at each Crediting Period and any necessary adjustments made. Furthermore, if there are unexpected [math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life}] emissions associated with a Reporting Period, or theThe projectProject as a whole, that occur after The Project has ended, then the Reversalreversal process will be triggered to compensate for any emissions not accounted for.
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] includes emissions associated with a project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of a projectProject.
It includes increases in GHG emissions as a result of The Project displacing emissions or causing a knock on effect that increases emissions elsewhere. This includes emissions associated with activity-shifting, market leakage and ecological leakage.
It is the Project Proponent's responsibility to identify potential sources of leakage emissions. As a minimum Biogenic Bio-CCS projects must account for market leakage emissions in accordance with the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module and the relevant storage modules.
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] emissions must be attributed to the Reporting Period in which they occur. Allocation may be permitted in certain instances, on a case by case basis in agreement with Isometric.
This section of the Protocol outlines requirements for emissions accounting relating to energy use, transportation, and embodied emissions associated with a CDR projectProject.
Emissions associated with energy usage, whether through electricity or fuel use, must be accounted for throughout all phases of the process.
Energy related emissions may include, but are not limited to:
Process emissions associated with The Project will be calculated by totaling the energy use (thermal and electrical) of all equipment within the project boundary. To determine the energy use, the following measurements must be provided:
Electricity:
When the electricity is provided to the CCS processes via the output of a Biogenic Bio-CCS facility which produces electricity, the cradle -to -grave emissions factor for the bioenergy facility shall be used as the primary emissions factor for calculation of electricity related emissions for the CDR process.
Electricity metering and record keeping must be performed in accordance with the Energy Use Accounting Module v1.2.
SeeRefer Section 3.2.6 ofto the Energy Use Accounting Module for requirements.
Thermal Energy
Any thermal energy used by the CDR process must be monitored, including steam use, direct combustion of fuels within the CDR process to provide heat, and use of waste heat.
In the case of steam, waste heat, or other thermal inputs to the CDR Process, measurements must be made of the total thermal energy supplied to the CDR Process. Total thermal energy must be measured using the following methods:
Emissions associated with thermal energy and its production, and record keeping, must be performed in accordance with the Energy Use Accounting Module v1.2.
The Energy Use Accounting Module v1.2 provides guidancerequirements on how energy-related emissions must be calculated so that they can be subtracted in the net CO2e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation approach to be followed for intensive facilities and non-intensive facilities and acceptable emissions factors.
Refer to Energy Use Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Emissions related to transportation via freight transportation services, such as rail, truck, or maritime transport must be accounted for, including:
The Transportation Emissions Accounting Module v1.1 provides guidancerequirements on how transportation-related emissions must be calculated in a CDR project so that they can be subtracted in the net CO2e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation approach to be followed and acceptable emissions factors.
Refer to Transportation Emissions Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Embodied GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing, delivery, and installation of all equipment and consumables that lie within the system boundary must be accounted for in each Reporting Period. Embodied emissions are those related to the life cycle impact of equipment and consumables.
Examples of project-specific materials, equipment and consumables that must be considered as part of the embodied emission calculation include but are not limited to:
Equipment, including:
Equipment and infrastructure for processes relating to the wider facility, for example energy generation or product manufacturing.
CO2 Capture Process:
CO2 transportation:
CO2 storage:
Monitoring:
Universal equipment for all processes:
Consumables, including:
Consumables for processes relating to the wider facility, for example energy generation or product manufacturing.
Capture Process:
CO2 storage:
Monitoring:
Universal consumables for all processes:
Embodied emissions for equipment used in the wider facility processes, CO2 capture process, CO2 transportation, or CO2 storage must be included the the system boundary. In some cases universal equipment may be excluded from the system boundary if The Project meets the eligibility criteria for a narrow system boundary outlined in Table 2.
The Embodied Emissions Accounting Module v1.0 sets out the calculation approach to be followed including allocation of embodied emissions, life cycle stages to be considered, data sources and emission factors.
Refer to Embodied Emissions Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Miscellaneous GHG emissions for emissions associated with a given Reporting Period are those not included in the SSR categories provided in Table 1. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities.
Miscellaneous GHG emissions must consider direct emissions of non-CO2 GHGs due to process leaks or fugitive emissions, releases, or GHG containing tailgas from:
Quantification of emissions associated with direct emissions of non-CO2 GHGs requires two primary measurements, the measurement of the total quantity of emissions and the analysis of emissions for CO2 and other GHG content. This can be calculated as follows:
[math: CO_{2}e_{MiscProjctMiscProject} = \sum_{t=1}^{T} m_{em,t} \cdot\ C_{GHG,t} \cdot\ GWP_{GHG}]
(Equation 43)
Where:
The total quantity of direct emissions can be measured by various acceptable methods, including:
The concentration of GHGs in direct emissions must be measured directly via one of the following methods:
The Project Proponent must maintain the following records as evidence supporting calculation of direct emissions from the CO2 conversion process:
Records of all data and analyses must be maintained by the Project Proponent and provided for verification purposes for a period of five years.
This Protocol provides multiple options for durable storage of CO2. The Project Proponent can choose from available options when submitting their projectProject for verification:
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in saline aquifers.
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in mafic and ultramafic formations.
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage via ex-situ mineralization in closed engineered systems.
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage via carbonation in the built environment.
This risk assessment identifies the pathway specific risk factors relevant to a carbon removal project. The relevant risk factors identified as part of a risk assessment are included in the monitoring plan requirements for the project, with details included in the Project Design Document. Project specific risk factors inform the required duration of monitoring along with the monitoring requirements set out in the Protocol and the requirements set out in the Monitoring Section of the Isometric Standard.
The risk score, as determined by the Risk of Reversal Questionnaire, will determine a project’s buffer pool contribution. Projects must re-assess their reversal risk at the renewal of each crediting period, or if monitoring identifies a reversal-related risk, or if an actual reversal event takes place. In any event, projects should reassess their reversal risk at a minimum every 5 years.
The Risk of Reversal Questionnaire questions that pertain to this protocol, drawn from the programme-level Risk of Reversal Questionnaire defined in Appendix B: Risk Reversal Questionnaire of the Isometric Standard, include the following:
| # in Isometric Standard Questionnaire | Question | If answered “Yes” | If answered “No” |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is a reversal directly observable with a physical or chemical measurement as opposed to a modeled result? | Proceed to questions 2-9 | Proceed to questions 8-9 |
| 2 | Is the carbon being stored in an impermeable geologic system? (e.g., salt cavern) | Proceed to questions 8-9 | Add 1 to Risk Score and proceed to questions 3-9 |
| 5 | Does this approach have a material risk of reversal due to natural disasters including, but not limited to, floods, storms, earthquakes, fires, etc.? | Add 1 to Risk Score | |
| 6 | Does this approach have a material risk of reversal due to human-induced events from outside actors, such as change in farming practices, change in ownership and management of project sites, or similar? | Add up to 2 to Risk Score | |
| 7 | Applicable only for subsurface storage: Is the carbon being stored with trapping mechanisms preventing reversals? (e.g., multiple confining layers, CO₂ dissolves or solidifies) | Minus 1 to Risk Score (unless 0) | |
| 8 | Is there 10+ years of monitoring and/or lab data demonstrating low project risk? | Minus up to 2 to Risk Score | |
| 9 | Does this pathway have a documented history of reversals? | Add 2 to Risk Score | |
| 10 | Is there one or more project-specific factors that merit a high risk level? | Add up to 2 to Risk Score |
Risk Score Categories
Project specific risk factors will depend on the form of carbon being stored (i.e., organic vs. inorganic), the method of storage (e.g., mineralization, encapsulation), the location of carbon storage (e.g., subsurface, ocean), and the proximity of that carbon to potential agents of reversal.
For projects with carbon storage as inorganic carbon, the presence the following risk factors must be reflected in the risk score corresponding to question 10:
For projects with any form of subsurface carbon storage, the presence of the following risk factors must be reflected in the risk score corresponding to question 10:
Isometric would like to thank following contributors to this Protocol and relevant Modules:
California Air Resources Board. (2022). Carbon Sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/carbon-sequestration-carbon-capture-removal-utilization-and-storage
Environment and Climate Change Canada. Clean Fuel Regulations: Quantification Method for CO2 Capture and Permanent Storage Version 1.0. (2022) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/eccc/En4-474-2022-eng.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2005). IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storagehttps://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf
International Organization for Standardization. (2008). Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (ISO JGCM GUM). https://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/GUM/JCGM100/C045315e-html/C045315e.html?csnumber=50461
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2011). ISO 14066:2011 Greenhouse gases — Competence requirements for greenhouse gas validation teams and verification teams. https://www.iso.org/standard/43277.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 14064-2:2019. Greenhouse Gases - Part 2: Specification With Guidance At The Project Level For Quantification, Monitoring And Reporting Of Greenhouse Gas Emission s Or Removal Enhancements. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66454.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 14064-3:2019. Greenhouse gases — Part 3: Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66455.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO 9300:2022 Measurement of gas flow by means of critical flow nozzles. https://www.iso.org/standard/77401.html
Isometric. (n.d.). Isometric — Glossary: Defining the terms that appear regularly in our work. Isometric. https://isometric.com/glossary
Matthews, J.B.R. (Ed.). (2018). IPCC, 2018: Annex I: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R. (ed.)]. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of... Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.008
Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon Credits, Version 3.0. (2022, May). https://carbonCreditquality.org/methodology.html
NIST (2015, April 20). Overview of ASTM D7036: A Quality Management Standard for Emission Testing. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/10/31/overview-astm-d7036.pdf
NIST. (2023). Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices - 2023 Edition. NIST. https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/publications/nist-handbooks/handbook-44-current-edition
US Department of Energy. (2022) Best Practices for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACS). https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/FECM%20DACS%20LCA%20Best%20Practices.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, April 18). Understanding Global Warming Potentials | US EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved June 14, 2023, from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
California Air Resources Board (2018). CCS Protocol under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/CCS_Protocol_Under_LCFS_8-13-18_ada.pdf
Terlouw, T., Bauer, C., Rosa, L., Mazzotti, M. (2021). Life cycle assessment of CO2 removal technologies: a critical review. Energy & Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EE03757E
Shi, XiaoyangX., Hang Xiao, HabibH., Azarabadi, JuzhengH., Song, XiaolongJ., Wu, XiX., Chen, X., and KlausLackner, K. S. Lackner(2020). "Sorbents for the directDirect captureCapture of CO2CO2 from ambientAmbient airAir." Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 59, no. 18 (2020): 6984-–7006. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201906756↩
Custelcean, RaduR. "(2022). Direct airAir captureCapture of CO2CO2 usingUsing solventsSolvents." Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 13 (2022):, 217-–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-092120-023936↩
Fujikawa, ShigenoriS., and RomanSelyanchyn, SelyanchynR. "(2022). Direct air capture by membranes." MRS Bulletin, 47, no. 4 (2022): 416-–423. https://doi.org/10.1557/s43577-022-00313-6↩
Renfrew, SaraS. E., DavidStarr, D. E., and Strasser, P. (2020). Electrochemical Approaches toward CO2 Capture and Concentration. ACS Catalysis, 10, 13058–13074. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c03639↩
Al Hameli, F., Belhaj, H., and Al Dhuhoori, M. (2022). CO2 Sequestration Overview in Geological Formations: Trapping Mechanisms Matrix Assessment. Energies, 15, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207805↩
Rochelle, C. A., Czernichowski-Lauriol, I., and Milodowski, A. E. Starr(2004). The impact of chemical reactions on CO2 storage in geological formations: A brief review. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 233, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.233.01.07↩
Terlouw, T., Treyer, K., Bauer, C., and PeterMazzotti, StrasserM. "Electrochemical(2021). approachesLife towardCycle CO2Assessment captureof Direct Air Carbon Capture and concentrationStorage with Low-Carbon Energy Sources." ACSEnvironmental catalysisScience 10& Technology, no55, 11397–11411. 21https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03263↩
Ricks, W., Xu, Q., and Jenkins, J. D. (20202023). Minimizing emissions from grid-based hydrogen production in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 18, 014025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acacb5↩
Erans, M., Sanz-Pérez, E. S., Hanak, D. P., Clulow, Z., Reiner, D. M., and Mutch, G. A. (2022). Direct air capture: 13058Process technology, techno-13074economic and socio-political challenges. Energy & Environmental Science, 15, 1360–1405. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EE03523A↩
For example, 40CFR19549 CFR §195.402 - Transportation of Hazardous Liquids via Pipeline: Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and 40CCF146emergencies, and 40 CFR §146.94 - Class VI Wells: Emergency and remedial response. ↩↩2
Water neutrality is defined as: the total demand for water should be the same after new development is built, as it was before. That is, the new demand for water should be offset in the existing community by making existing infrastructure and homes in the area more water efficient. ↩
ISO 14064-3: 2019, Section 5.1.7 ↩
Carbon Credit Quality Initiative. Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon credits, Version 3.0 (May 2022). https://carbonCreditqualitycarboncreditquality.org/methodology.html↩
Lyons, L., Kavvadias, K. and Carlsson, J., (2021). Defining and accounting for waste heat and cold,. EUR 30869 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-42588-5,. doi:10.2760/73253, JRC126383. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC126383↩
Flow meters must be calibrated to national traceable standards by an ISO 17025 accredited metrology laboratory. Flow meters may include critical nozzle flow meters (i.e. ISO 9300:2022 compliant meters), coriolis mass flow meters, and other applicable meters for mixed gas flows, as long as properly calibrated and maintained. ↩
Dinh, TrieuT.-VuongV., In-Young Choi, YounI.-SukY., Son, Y.-S., and JoKim, J.-Chun KimC. "(2016). A review on non-dispersive infrared gas sensors: Improvement of sensor detection limit and interference correction." Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 231 (2016):, 529-–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.040↩
Sandoval-Bohorquez, Víctor. StivensonS., Edwing Alexander Velasco Rozo, E. A. V., and Baldovino-Medrano, Víctor. G. Baldovino-Medrano(2020). "A method for the highly accurate quantification of gas streams by on-line chromatography." Journal of Chromatography A, 1626 (2020):, 461355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461355↩