This Protocol (A document that describes how to quantitatively assess the net amount of CO₂ removed by a process. To Isometric, a Protocol is specific to a Project Proponent's process and comprised of Modules representing the Carbon Fluxes involved in the CDR process. A Protocol measures the full carbon impact of a process against the Baseline of it not occurring.) provides the requirements and procedures for the calculation of net CO2 equivalent (CO2e) (The amount of CO₂ emissions that would cause the same integrated radiative forcing or temperature change, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of GHG or a mixture of GHGs. One common metric of CO₂e is the 100-year Global Warming Potential.)removals (The term used to represent the CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere as a result of a CDR process.) from the atmosphere via Industrial Process Biogenic Carbon Capture and Storage (Describes the addition of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere to a reservoir, which serves as its ultimate destination. This is also referred to as “sequestration”.) (Bio-CCS). This Protocol is developed for application to 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-grave (Considering impacts at each stage of a product's life cycle, from the time natural resources are extracted from the ground and processed through each subsequent stage of manufacturing, transportation, product use, and ultimately, disposal.)GHG Statement (A document submitted alongside Claimed Removals and/or Reductions that details the calculations associated with a Removal or Reduction, including the Project's emissions, Removals, Reductions and Leakages, presented together in net metric tonnes of CO₂e per Removal or Reduction.) can be accurately applied and in which the CO2 captured is stored via physical5 or chemical6 trapping mechanisms for > 1000 years.
The Protocol ensures:
Specific standards and Protocols 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 Bio-CCS7,8,9. As Bio-CCS is still a developing approach to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) (Activities that remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and store it in products or geological, terrestrial, and oceanic Reservoirs. CDR includes the enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture (DAC) and storage, but excludes natural CO₂ uptake not directly caused by human intervention.) 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 that capture biogenic CO2 at a point-source, resulting from processing of an eligible biomass feedstock (Raw material which is used for CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction.) as outlined in the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3, and store this CO2 with >1000 years durability (The amount of time carbon removed from the atmosphere by an intervention – for example, a CDR project – is expected to reside in a given Reservoir, taking into account both physical risks and socioeconomic constructs (such as contracts) to protect the Reservoir in question.) via physical or chemical trapping mechanisms laid out in a relevant CO2 Storage Module (Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.)(see Section 9). Examples of applicable point-sources include, but are not limited to, biomass-fired power plants, biomass-fired combined heat and power (CHP) facilities, bio-hydrogen production, biogas plants, and Energy-from-Waste (EFW) facilities.
[/G-ZW9X-0]Projects which utilise waste feedstocks where biogenic and fossil carbon is inseparable are only eligible if:
Projects which utilise waste feedstocks where biogenic and fossil carbon is inseparable must demonstrate that there is a robust waste management hierarchy that ensures only unrecyclable waste is incinerated.
[/R-Q8V2-0]See Section 2 of Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3 for eligibility criteria.
Projects which co-fire biomass with fossil fuels, or those using waste feedstocks where biogenic and fossil carbon is inseparable, must use an emission factor (An estimate of the emissions intensity per unit of an activity.) for the used mass of fossil fuels that accounts for the full upstream and combustion emissions.
If the fossil CO2 is captured alongside the biogenic carbon, quantified according to the requirements in Section 8.2.13.1, and (barring unavoidable CO2 leaks) is transported to the same storage reservoir (A location where carbon is stored. This can be via physical barriers (such as geological formations) or through partitioning based on chemical or biological processes (such as mineralization or photosynthesis).) as the biogenic CO2, then Projects may use an emission factor (An estimate of the emissions intensity per unit of an activity.) for the fossil fuel which considers only the upstream emissions and excludes combustion emissions.
Whether emitted fossil CO2 is considered a Project emission is dependent on the baseline (A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.) scenario according to the guidelines in Section 7: System Boundary and Project Baseline, Appendix A1: Guidance for Handling Fossil CO2 and Appendix B2: Baselines.
Additionally, Projects where more than 5% of feedstocks by mass are fossil fuels must provide a justification for the necessity of these feedstocks within the context of the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) Project at validation if applicable to the whole Project lifetime, or at verification if related to a specific Crediting Period (The period of time over which a Project Design Document is valid, and over which Removals or Reductions may be Verified, resulting in Issued Credits.) only, subject to agreement with Isometric. Isometric reserves the right to not Creditcredit (A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.) Removals attributed to a given Reporting Period of a Project that has violated this guardrail without appropriate justification.
The Project Proponent must consider environmental and social impacts from processes that comprise part of the Project. The Project Proponent (The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of a Removal or Reduction Project.) must provide evidence that the Project will do no net environmental or social harm by complying with Sectionthe 3.7Environmental and Social Impacts section of the Isometric Standard as well as the following requirements:
Certain waste feedstocks may carry a higher risk of pollution due to contamination with hazardous components, such as chemical solvents or trace metals. The incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) can also carry a higher risk of pollution because heterogeneous feedstocks vary in composition and may contain trace contaminants. As a result, proper handling of waste and by-product (Materials of value that are produced incidentally or as a residual of the production process.) outputs is essential.
Projects involving the combustion of such materials must demonstrate that the facility complies with all relevant national, regional, and local environmental regulations for responsible waste handling, such as the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), or an equivalent standard applicable to the Project's location.
If no suitable regional standard exists, Project Proponents are required to demonstrate that the facility follows international best practice frameworks for pollution management, including appropriate treatment of the following waste streams:
[/R-5W9P-0]Typically the largest fraction of the output mass, bottom ash is typically composed of mineral residues, metals and potentially some small amount of uncombusted organic matter. Separation of the metals and suitable treatment to enable recycling/reuse is recommended. Project Proponents must establish an end-use/disposal of the ash, such as: recycling (separation of ferrous and non-ferrous metals); and/or treatment of the ash to enable reuse as Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate (IBAA) in construction. If bottom ash is sent to landfill as non-hazardous waste, Project Proponents must provide justification that there is no risk of hazardous leaching (for example, through EN 12457-2 or EN 14405 testing).
[/G-GH82-0]Fly ash typically comprises up to 5% of the original feedstock mass, consisting of fine particles captured from the flue gas, often with high concentrations of heavy metals, dioxins and furans. Both waste residues are considered hazardous waste. As such, Project Proponents must propose an appropriate method of disposal, for example by sending to a hazardous waste facility, or taking additional steps to stabilize the fly ash, using physical or chemical binders.
[/G-463Q-0]Project Proponents must use best available techniques to monitor and reduce flue gas emissions in compliance with the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) and the limits detailed in EU Directive 2010/75/EU Annex VI Part 3, or equivalent local legislation.
[/G-QTZC-0]Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), such as dioxins and furans, may be present in mixed waste material. If released to the environment, POPs can accumulate in living organisms and pose risks to human health and ecosystems. The high combustion temperature of incineration facilities leads to the destruction of POPs.
To reduce the prevalence of POPs, the flue gas must have a residence time of at least two seconds at homogeneous temperatures > 850 °C in the post-combustion zone. Temperature data must be reported alongside other data during a verification.
In addition, Project Proponents must propose a method for monitoring halogen content in any feedstock containing both fossil and biogenic carbon. Should the halogen content determination result in > 1%, the flue gas must have a residence time of at least two seconds at homogeneous temperatures > 1100 °C in the post-combustion zone instead.
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 Project characteristics in a Project Design Document (PDD) (The document that clearly outlines how a Project will generate rigorously quantifiable Additional high-quality Removals or Reductions.) as outlined in Sectionthe 3.2Documentation section of the Isometric Standard. The PDD will form the basis for project verification and evaluation in accordance with this Protocol, and must include consideration of processes unique to 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 the Sectionrelevant 4section of the Isometric Standard.
The Validation and Verification Body (VVB) (Third-party auditing organizations that are experts in their sector and used to determine if a project conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards set out by a governing body. A VVB must be approved by Isometric prior to conducting validation and verification.) must consider following requisite components:
The threshold for Materiality (An acceptable difference between reported Removals/emissions or Reductions/emissions and what an auditor determines is the actual Removal/emissions or Reduction/emissions.), considering the totality of all omissions, errors and mis-statements, is 5%,outlined in accordance withthe SectionMaterialiaty 4.3Threshold section of the Isometric Standard.
Verifiers should also verify the documentation of uncertainty (A lack of knowledge of the exact amount of CO₂ removed by a particular process, Uncertainty may be quantified using probability distributions, confidence intervals, or variance estimates.) of the GHG Statement as required by Sectionthe 2.5.7relevant section of the Isometric Standard. Qualitative Materiality issues may also be identified and documented, such as:12
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 the first Validation or Verification of a Project, to the capture and (if applicable) storage site. Verifiers 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 occur at least once during each Project Validation. Additional site visits may be required if there are substantial changes to field operations over the course of a Project's Validation period, or if deemed necessary by Isometric or the VVB. Site visit plans are to be determined according to the VVB's internal assessment, in consultation with Isometric.
VVBs must comply with the requirements defined in Sectionthe 4Validation and Verification Requirements section of the Isometric Standard. In addition, teams should maintain and demonstrate expertise associated with the specific technologies of interest, including solvent/sorbent chemistry, electricity procurement and heat/power generation and the relevant CO2 storage technology.
Competency must be demonstrated in accordance with Isometric's VVB policy, for example based on the relevant sectoral scope accreditations in IAF MD 14, or another demonstration of relevant expertise for this Protocol and the selected storage module(s).
CDR via Bio-CCS 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., if capture and storage are undertaken by different entities), and to avoid double counting (Improperly allocating the same Removal or Reduction from a Project Proponent more than once to multiple Buyers.) of CO2e removals, a single Project Proponent must be specified contractually as the sole owner of the Credits. Contracts must comply with all requirements defined in Sectionthe 3.1Ownership section of the Isometric Standard.
The Project Proponent must be able to demonstrate additionality through compliance with Sectionthe 2.5.3Additionality section of the Isometric Standard. The baseline scenario and counterfactual (An assessment of what would have happened in the absence of a particular intervention – i.e., assuming the Baseline scenario.) utilized to assess additionality must be project-specific, and are described in Section 7.2 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.13
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 8) for a Project, [math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP}], must be conservatively determined, based on the requirements outlined in Sectionthe 2.5.7relevant section 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 Sectionthe 2.5.7relevant section of the Isometric Standard.
In addition, a sensitivity analysis (An analysis of how much different components in a Model contribute to the overall Uncertainty.) 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 removal. For all other parameters, information about uncertainty must be specified.
In accordance with Sectionthe 3.8Data Sharing section 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 (An entity that purchases Removals or Reductions, often with the purpose of Retiring Credits to make a Removal or Reduction claim.), the Registry (A database that holds information on Verified Removals and Reductions based on Protocols. Registries Issue Credits, and track their ownership and Retirement.), 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.
The scope of this Protocol includes GHG sources, sinks (Any process, activity, or mechanism that removes a greenhouse gas, a precursor to a greenhouse gas, or an aerosol from the atmosphere.) and reservoirs (SSRs (Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs)) associated with a Bio-CCS Project (An activity or process or group of activities or processes that alter the condition of a Baseline and leads to Removals or Reductions.).
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 direct emissions (Emissions that are produced by a specific CDR process and are directly controllable.) from a process or storage system, or indirect emissions from combustion of fuels, electricity generation, or other sources. Emissions must include all GHG SSRs within the system boundary, from the construction or manufacturing of each physical site and associated equipment, closure and disposal of each site and associated equipment, and operation of each process (CO2 capture process, CO2 transportation, storage, and monitoring), including embodied emissions (Life cycle GHG emissions associated with production of materials, transportation, and construction or other processes for goods or buildings.) of equipment and consumables used in the Project. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities.
Any emissions from sub-processes or process changes that would not have taken place without the CDR Project must be fully considered in the system boundary. Any activity that ultimately leads to the issuance (Credits are issued to the Credit Account of a Project Proponent with whom Isometric has a Validated Protocol after an Order for Verification and Credit Issuance services from a Buyer and once a Verified Removal or Reduction has taken place.) of Credits should be included in the system boundary. Biomass feedstock emissions must be calculated as outlined in Section 3 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3. This allows for accurate consideration of additional, incremental emissions induced by the carbon removal process.
The GHG Statement boundary (The Controlled, Related and Affected GHG Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs to be considered in the GHG Statement.) must include all relevant GHG SSRs controlled, related and affected by the Project, including but not limited to the SSRs set out 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 in the PDD.
Figure 1. Process flow diagram showing system boundary for Bio-CCS projects
[Image: FigureSystem 1boundary diagrams]
Table 1. Scope of activities to be included in the system boundary for Bio-CCS projects
Activity | GHG Source, Sink or Reservoir | GHG | Scope | Timescale of emissions and accounting allocation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Establishment of Project | Equipment and materials manufacture | All | Before project activities start - must be accounted for in the first Reporting Period or amortized in line with allocation rules (see Section 8.5.1) | |||
Equipment and materials transport to site | All GHGs | Transport emissions associated with transporting materials and equipment to the Project site(s) (lifecycle module A4). | ||||
Construction and installation | All GHGs | Emissions related to construction and installation of the Project site(s) (lifecycle module A5). To include energy use for construction, installation and groundworks, as well as waste processing activities and emissions associated with land use change. | ||||
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 | Biomass Feedstock Sourcing | All GHGs | Any embodied, energy and transport emissions associated with biomass cultivation and harvesting. | Over each Reporting Period - must be accounted for in the relevant Reporting Period (See Section 8. | ||
Biomass feedstock transport | All GHGs | Transport of biomass including to biomass processing site and all other transport of biomass ahead of processing to CO2. | ||||
Bio-CCS | All GHGs | Emissions associated with
| ||||
Carbon capture | All GHGs | Emissions associated with carbon capture processes including:
| ||||
CO2 transport | All GHGs | Emissions associated with CO2 transportation including:
| ||||
CO2 storage | All GHGs | Emissions associated with CO2 storage processes including:
| ||||
CO2 stored | CO2 only | The gross amount of CO2 removed and durably stored over a Reporting Period. | ||||
Direct emissions | All GHGs | Direct emissions due to process leaks or fugitive emissions, releases, or GHG containing tailgas. See Section 8. | ||||
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. | ||||
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 modules C1-4). | After Reporting Period - must be accounted for in the first Reporting Period or amortized in line with allocation rules (See Section 8. | ||
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. |
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 The Project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of The Project must also be considered. This is covered under Leakage in Section 8.2.35.4.
In line with the GHG Accounting Module v1.01, the Project must:
Bio
The baseline scenario for a Bio-CCS Project (An activity or process or group of activities or processes that alter the condition of a Baseline and leads to Removals or Reductions.) is dependent on whether the CCS aspect of the Project is part of a new-build facility, or a retrofit (The introduction of new materials, products or technologies to an existing process or facility.) to an existing facility:
See Appendix B2: Baselines for further guidance on constructing a Project baseline.
The counterfactual is any CO2 stored in the biomass feedstock that would have remained durably stored in the biomass feedstock in the absence of the Project, in addition to any CO2 that would have been durably stored by the selected storage technology.
[/G-T39N-0]See Section 3.0 of Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3 for biomass counterfactual eligibility.
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 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}].
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 Bio-CCS must be calculated as follows for a Reporting Period, [math: RP]:
[math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP} = CO_2e_{Stored,\ RP}\ –\ CO_2e_{Counterfactual,\ RP} -\ CO_2e_{Emissions,\ RP}]
(Equation 1)
Where;
It should be noted that any potential reversals (The escape of CO₂ to the atmosphere after it has been stored, and after a Credit has been Issued. A Reversal is classified as avoidable if a Project Proponent has influence or control over it and it likely could have been averted through application of reasonable risk mitigation measures. Any other Reversals will be classified as unavoidable.) of CO2 storage in the final storage location occur after Credits have been issued so are not included in this equation. See Sectionthe 5.6Reversals and Buffer Pools section of the Isometric Standard for further information. Risk of reversal information is given in Appendix D4: Risk of Reversal Questionnaire, with further information provided within the relevant Storage Module.
[math: CO_2e_{Stored CO2eStored,\ RP}]
[math:CO_{2}e_CO_2e_{Stored,\ RP} = F_{B} \times \sum_{i}^{N} CO_{2}e_{Storage,i}]
(Equation 2)
Quantification of [math: CO_{2}e_{Storage}], measurements, and monitoring requirements for the different conversion and storage options are detailed within the respective Modules.
See Section 35.40 for calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Storage}] in saline aquifers.
See Section 35.40 for calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Storage}] in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs.
See Section 35.40 for calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Storage}] in via in-situ mineralization.
See Section 4.2.1 for calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Storage}] via ex-situ mineralization in closed engineered systems. This is the authoritative source for calculating [math: CO_2e_{Storage}] via carbonation in the built environment.
See Section 4.1.1 for calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Storage}] via enhanced weathering in closed engineered systems.
Projects that capture CO2 that is not entirely of biogenic origin must determine the biogenic fraction that is eligible for Crediting ([math: F_{B}]). If all captured CO2 is biogenic, [math: F_{B}] = 1.
[/R-SH5B-0]Projects which use waste feedstocks which contain inseparable biogenic and fossil carbon must use Method A to determine [math: F_{B}]. The use of Method B may be permitted in certain instances, on a case-by-case basis in agreement with Isometric.
[/G-DR5A-0]Projects which use biogenic feedstocks co-fired with fossil fuels may use Method A or B to determine [math: F_{B}].
[/G-1D0Z-0]Once [math: F_{B}] is determined in accordance with Section 8.2.13.1.1 or Section 8.2.13.1.2, the [math: CO_{2}e_{Storage}] as determined by the appropriate storage Module(s) must be converted to eligible biogenic [math: CO_{2}e_{Storage}] using Equation 2.
[math: F_{B}] must be determined by
[math: F_{B}] must be conservatively determined using a carbon mass balance approach detailed by Equation 3.
[math: F_B = \frac{\sum_{i}^{N_B}(m_{Biomass,i} \cdot C_{Biomass,i})}{\sum_{i}^{N_B}(m_{Biomass,i} \cdot C_{Biomass,i}) + \sum_{i}^{N_{FF}}(m_{FF,i} \cdot C_{FF,i})}]
(Equation 3)
where
For Validation, all projects must estimate an average [math: F_{B}] based on:
The estimated [math: F_{B}] must be included in the PDD, and may be expressed as a monthly profile to account for seasonal variation, or on a per-feedstock basis if the feedstock has low variability.
[/G-N1WM-0]Type:eCounterfactual, Counterfactual
As outlined in Section 7.2, refer to both the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3 and the relevant storage module for calculation of counterfactual storage.
See Section 3.3 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3 for calculation requirements.
Type:eEmissions, Emissions
[math: CO_2e_{Emissions,\ RP}] 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,\ RP}^{}\ = \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Establishment,\ RP}^{}\ + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Operations,\ RP}^{} + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}^{}+ \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Leakage,\ RP}^{}]
(Equation 4)
Where:
The following sections provide an overview for each variable. Section 8.2.4 provides guidance on specific quantification requirements for activities included in each variable.
GHG emissions associated with [math: CO_{2}e_{Establishment,\ RP}] 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 through to before the first removal activity takes place. GHG emissions associated with project establishment may be amortized over the anticipated project lifetime, or per output of product. Rules onfor amortization (The term used to describe allocation of Project emissions to multiple Removals or Reductions.) are outlined in Section 7 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.1.
See Section 7 of the GHG Accounting Module.
GHG emissions associated with [math: CO_2e_{Operations,\ RP}] must include all emissions associated with operational activities, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1. This includes all direct emissions as laid out in Section 8.25.3.2.17.
[math: CO_2e_{Operations,\ RP}] emissions occur over the Reporting Period for the deployment being Credited and are applicable to the current deployment only. [math: CO_2e_{Operations\ RP}] emissions must be attributed to the Reporting Period in which they occur. Allocation outside of emissionsthe to differentcurrent Reporting Periods or injection batchesPeriod may be permitted in certain instances, on a case -by -case basis in agreement with Isometric.
[math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}] includes all emissions associated with activities that are anticipated to occur after the Crediting Period until the end of the Project Commitment Period. This includes activities related to ongoing monitoring for Reversals.
[math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}] must be estimated upfront and allocated in the same way as set out for calculation of [math: CO_{2}e_{Establishment,\ RP}].
Given the uncertain nature of [math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}] emissions, assumptions must be revisited at each Reporting Period and any necessary adjustments made.
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage,\ RP}] includes emissions associated with a project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of a Project.
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 Bio-CCS Projects must account for market leakage emissions in accordance with the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3 and the relevant Storage Modules, as well as energy leakage associated with reductions in efficiency of wider processes, or reduction in energy outputs as a result of the CDR Project.
[/G-G07K-0][math: CO_2e_{Leakage,\ RP}] 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.
The Project Proponent must identify, highlight and justify any data gaps and missing calibration data should they occur. Isometric and the VVB must be notified of data gaps and missing calibration data as soon as they become evident. Documentation that explains the approach taken and details the missing data must be provided to Isometric and the VVB and included in the GHG Statement.
For parameters that require sub-hourly measurements (such as direct GHG emission concentrations and flow rates), the Project Proponent must adhere to the following procedure for handling missing data events.
Where data gaps in measurements are 30 minutes or less in duration, the Project Proponent must use an average measurement utilising measurements taken 30 minutes prior to and following the data gap.
Where data gaps in measurements are longer than 30 minutes in duration, the Project Proponent must apply the above approach for up to a 30 minute period within the duration of the data gap only. For the remaining duration of the data gap the Project Proponent must assume a conservative stance in consultation with Isometric, depending on the nature of the data loss as detailed below:
In addition, data gaps must account for less than 5% of the data used for both the calculation of removals and the calculation of emissions within a given Reporting Period, any data missing above this threshold will also be subject to the conservative rules outlined above.
Where calibrations are missed, one must be completed as soon as this becomes evident. For data collected between when the calibration was required and when it took place, a conservative estimate should be agreed between the VVB, Project Proponent and Isometric.
GHG emissions accounting must be undertaken in alignment with the GHG Accounting Module v1.1, which ensures a consistently rigorous standard in how GHG emissions are quantified and reported between different CDR Projects and approaches. This includes:
Refer to GHG Accounting Module for emissions accounting guidelines.
The Bio-CCS process may result in the production of co-products, such as electricity and heat. Projects must follow the co-product allocation procedures described in Section 6.1 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.1. This includes provisions for a narrow system boundary in instances where the facility is a retrofit and provisions for applying the substitution method.
In addition to the requirements set out in the GHG Accounting Module v1.1, Bio-CCS projects may follow the additional provisions below for Procedure 2: Dividing the process into sub-processes (as set out in the GHG Accounting Module v1.1) if they comply with EC1 in Table 2.
[/G-3NB8-0]Table 2. Additional eligibility criteria for dividing the process into sub-processes
Description | Documentation required | |
|---|---|---|
EC1 | The Bio-CCS process is carbon capture on a new build waste incineration facility, but the building of the waste incineration facility without CCS would have occurred without the Project, and the waste incineration activities are in the Project baseline. | Robust justification of the non-additionality of the waste incineration facility without CCS, including counterfactual or current fate of the waste feedstocks accounting for the full projected facility capacity. Evidence for each waste feedstock that no alternative fate is possible (for example, legislation prohibiting landfill of the waste feedstock). The system boundary in this case is limited to materials and processes necessary for the retrofit and processes that directly contribute to the CDR process. This includes existing processes at the facility that are operated at increased capacity to provide for the CDR process as well as any additional load bearing structures. Evidence of fractional differences in inputs, for example the step-change in energy requirements for the CDR process as a retrofit to an existing facility, must be evidenced in full. Any reduction in efficiency of energy production as a result of the CDR process must be included in the system boundary as part of the assessment of leakage (See Section 8.5.4). |
For Bio-CCS Projects capturing both fossil and biogenic CO2, Project emissions ([math: CO_{2}e_{Emissions}]) by default must be fully allocated to the CDR Project. However, if the Project can satisfy all of Eligibility Criteria EC2 to EC5 in Table 3, they may undertake a mass-balance allocation of emissions to the biogenic fraction.
[/G-QA6X-0]Table 3. Eligibility criteria for mass balance emissions allocation
Description | Documentation required | |
|---|---|---|
EC2 | The Bio-CCS process uses waste feedstocks which contain inseparable biogenic and fossil carbon. | At least 50% of the total feedstocks used by the plant are comprised of inseparable biogenic and fossil carbon and are compliant with SC6 from the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3. |
EC3 | The Bio-CCS process is within the scope of a sufficiently rigorous cap-and-trade-scheme. | The fossil emissions from the capture facility must be within the scope of a cap-and-trade scheme listed in Appendix 3. |
EC4 | The Bio-CCS Project can demonstrate that CCS of the fossil emissions would not happen without the CDR revenue. | Evidence submitted against the Additionality requirements in the Isometric Standard must also demonstrate that capture and storage of the fossil emissions would not happen without CDR revenue. |
EC5 | The Bio-CCS Project must demonstrate with full allocation of Project emissions the Project is still net negative. | Project Proponents must demonstrate at each Verification that if the GHG Statement did not undertake allocation based on mass-balance of biogenic fraction, the Project would still be net negative. |
If eligible, Projects may allocate Project emissions to the biogenic fraction by multiplying relevant Project emissions by [math: F_B] in line with Equation 10. Relevant Project emissions are those where the same processes are shared between fossil and biogenic CO2 capture and storage. [math: CO_{2}^{}e_{Leakage}] emissions must not be allocated.
[math: {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Emissions,\ RP}^{}\ = \ F_B\ *\ ({CO}_{2}^{}e_{Establishment,\ RP}^{}\ + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Operations,\ RP}^{} + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}^{}) \ + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Leakage,\ RP}^{}]
(Equation 10)
Where
This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of energy use as part of the GHG Statement. Emissions associated with energy usage result from the consumption of electricity or fuel.
Examples of electricity usage may include, but are not limited to:
Energy Use Measurement
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:
[/G-AZ2J-0]Electricity:
When the electricity is provided to the CCS processes via the output of a 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 v1.3.
Refer to 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 v1.3.
Refer to Energy Use Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of embodied emissions as part of the GHG Statement. Embodied emissions are those related to the life cycle impact of equipment and consumables.
The Project Proponent must identify all equipment and consumables used in the biomass conversion and storage process, identify appropriate cradle to grave emission factors, and allocate the emissions to removals appropriately.
Examples of project-specific materials and equipment that must be considered as part of the embodied emission calculation include but are not limited to:
Section 4.1 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.1 sets out the calculation approach to be followed including allocation of embodied emissions, life cycle stages to be considered, data sources and emission factors.
See Section 4.1 for guidance on embodied emissions calculations.
This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of emissions related to transportation.
Emissions associated with transportation should include transportation of products as part of a batch [math: n]’s process, including the following:
Section 4.2 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.1 provides requirements on how transportation-related emissions must be calculated so that they can be subtracted in the net CO2e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation scope, approach to be followed, and acceptable emissions factors.
Refer to Section 4.2 for guidance on transportation emissions calculations.
Bio-CCS processes can generate direct emissions of non-biogenic CO2 and/or other GHGs due to:
Direct emissions reported under this section include non-biogenic CO2 and other GHGs. Biogenic CO2 released is reflected in reductions to the measured value of stored CO2 ([math: CO_{2eStored,RP}]), which determines net CO2e removal and creditingCrediting.
Additionally, Projects that comply with EC1 in the GHG Accounting Module v1.01, or EC1 in Table 2 may exclude direct emissions, provided these emissions were occuringoccurring and would continue to occur in the baseline scenario. This means direct emissions from additional feedstock sourced because of the CDR Project must be accounted for.
All GHGs within the system boundary emitted to the atmosphere must be accurately measured and reported.
All fossil emissions that are not captured by a Project’s capture process must be appropriately quantified. If within the system boundary, they must be reported as [math: CO_{2}e_{Direct\ Emissions,RP}] using the following calculation:
(Equation 5) Where: For combustion process facilities for the provision of power or heat, measurements must be acquired in line with EN 14181 in addition to the requirements below: For all other Projects: In the event of a process malfunction (such as mechanical failure, gas leaks and/or PRV actuation events), direct measurement will sometimes not be possible and direct emissions through these routes must need to be documented and reported in the Reporting Period in which they occur, with best possible conservative estimations of emissions, in agreement with Isometric.
[/G-8PR9-0]
[/G-WBKY-0]1415 or use appropriate conversion factors;1516,1617
The Project Proponent must maintain the following records as evidence supporting calculation of direct emissions:
Records of all data and analyses must be maintained by the Project Proponent and provided for verification purposes for a periodminimum of five years after the end of the monitoring period.
In order to conservatively determine the fossil CO2 emitted due to the Project between capture and storage, the quantity of fossil CO2 captured must be quantified and the quantity of fossil CO2 proven to be durably stored by the Project must be deducted.
Projects which use waste feedstocks which contain inseparable biogenic and fossil carbon must use Method A to determine the direct emissions. Projects which use biogenic feedstocks co-fired with fossil fuels may use Method A or B to determine the quantity of fossil CO2.
[math: CO_{2}e{_{{Post-Capture\text{ }Emissions}}} = CO_{2}e{_{Captured}} \cdot (1-F_B) - \left(\sum CO_{2}e{_{Storage}} \cdot (1-F_B)\right)]
(Equation 6)
Where:
[math: CO_2e_{{Captured, RP}}] represents the gross amount of CO2 captured by the Project during a Reporting Period.
This can be calculated by using the mass and average concentration of CO2 over a given time period, summed across the whole [math: RP]:
[math: CO_2e_{Captured,\ RP} = \sum_{t=1}^{T} C_{mean,cap,t} \cdot m_{cap,t}]
(Equation 7)
Where:
The mass of CO2-containing fluid captured, [math: m_{cap,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 is calculated as:
[math: m_{cap,t} = V_{cap,t} \cdot \rho_{cap,t}]
(Equation 8)
Where:
The density of the fluid captured 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 project verification.
The concentration of CO2 in the captured fluid stream must be:
The mass of captured fluid ([math: m_{cap}]) 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:
Alternative methods of measuring the mass of CO2 captured on a batch basis may be accepted on a case-by-case basis in agreement with Isometric.
[math: CO_{2}e_{{Post-Capture\text{ }Emissions}} = \sum_{i}^{N_{FF}}(m_{FF} \cdot C_{FF}) - \left(\sum_{j}^{N} CO_{2}e_{{Storage,j}} \cdot (1-F_B)\right)]
(Equation 9)
Where:
[math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}] 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,\ RP}] 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,\ RP}].
Given the uncertain nature of [math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}] 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,\ RP}] emissions associated with a Reporting Period, or the Project as a whole, that occur after the Project has ended, then the reversal process will be triggered to compensate for any emissions not accounted for.
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage,\ RP}] includes emissions associated with a project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of a Project.
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 Bio-CCS Projects must account for market leakage emissions in accordance with the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3 and the relevant Storage Modules, as well as energy leakage associated with reductions in efficiency of wider processes, or reduction in energy outputs as a result of the CDR Project.
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage,\ RP}] 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.
The Project Proponent must identify, highlight and justify any data gaps and missing calibration data should they occur. Isometric and the VVB must be notified of data gaps and missing calibration data as soon as they become evident. Documentation that explains the approach taken and details the missing data must be provided to Isometric and the VVB and included in the GHG Statement.
For parameters that require sub-hourly measurements (such as direct GHG emission concentrations and flow rates), the Project Proponent must adhere to the following procedure for handling missing data events.
Where data gaps in measurements are 30 minutes or less in duration, the Project Proponent must use an average measurement utilising measurements taken 30 minutes prior to and following the data gap.
Where data gaps in measurements are longer than 30 minutes in duration, the Project Proponent must apply the above approach for up to a 30 minute period within the duration of the data gap only. For the remaining duration of the data gap the Project Proponent must assume a conservative stance in consultation with Isometric, depending on the nature of the data loss as detailed below:
In addition, data gaps must account for less than 5% of the data used for both the calculation of removals and the calculation of emissions within a given Reporting Period, any data missing above this threshold will also be subject to the conservative rules outlined above.
Where calibrations are missed, one must be completed as soon as this becomes evident. For data collected between when the calibration was required and when it took place, a conservative estimate should be agreed between the VVB, Project Proponent and Isometric.
GHG emissions accounting must be undertaken in alignment with the GHG Accounting Module v1.0, which ensures a consistently rigorous standard in how GHG emissions are quantified and reported between different CDR Projects and approaches. This includes:
Refer to GHG Accounting Module for emissions accounting guidelines.
Embodied emissions associated with system inputs considered to be waste products (An output of a process that has no intended value to the producer.) can be excluded from the accounting of the GHG Statement system boundary provided the appropriate eligibility criteria are met.
For waste energy inputs, for example the use of waste heat, refer to the Energy Use Accounting Module v1.3.
Refer to Energy Use Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
All biomass feedstock must be eligible and accounted for according to the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3.
See Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3 for eligibility criteria.
For all other waste inputs, refer to Section 6.3 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.0.
See GHG Accounting Module for eligibility criteria.
The Bio-CCS process may result in the production of co-products, such as electricity and heat. Projects must follow the co-product allocation procedures described in Section 6.1 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.0. This includes provisions for a narrow system boundary in instances where the facility is a retrofit and provisions for applying the substitution method.
In addition to the requirements set out in the GHG Accounting Module v1.0, Bio-CCS projects may follow the additional provisions below for Procedure 2: Dividing the process into sub-processes (as set out in the GHG Accounting Module v1.0) if they comply with EC1 in Table 2.
Table 2. Additional eligibility criteria for dividing the process into sub-processes
|
For Bio-CCS Projects capturing both fossil and biogenic CO2, Project emissions ([math: CO_{2}e_{Emissions}]) by default must be fully allocated to the CDR Project. However, if the Project can satisfy all of Eligibility Criteria EC2 to EC5 in Table 3, they may undertake a mass-balance allocation of emissions to the biogenic fraction.
Table 3. Eligibility criteria for mass balance emissions allocation
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
If eligible, Projects may allocate Project emissions to the biogenic fraction by multiplying relevant Project emissions by [math: F_B] in line with Equation 10. Relevant Project emissions are those where the same processes are shared between fossil and biogenic CO2 capture and storage. [math: CO_{2}^{}e_{Leakage}] emissions must not be allocated.
[math: {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Emissions,\ RP}^{}\ = \ F_B\ *\ ({CO}_{2}^{}e_{Establishment,\ RP}^{}\ + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Operations,\ RP}^{} + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}^{}) \ + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Leakage,\ RP}^{}]
(Equation 10)
Where
This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of energy use as part of the GHG Statement. Emissions associated with energy usage result from the consumption of electricity or fuel.
Examples of electricity usage 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 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 v1.3.
Refer to 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 v1.3.
The Energy Use Accounting Module v1.3 provides requirements 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.
This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of emissions related to transportation.
Emissions associated with transportation should include transportation of products as part of a batch [math: n]’s process, including the following:
Section 4.2 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.0 provides requirements on how transportation-related emissions must be calculated so that they can be subtracted in the net CO2e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation scope, approach to be followed, and acceptable emissions factors.
See GHG Accounting Module for eligibility criteria.
This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of embodied emissions as part of the GHG Statement. Embodied emissions are those related to the life cycle impact of equipment and consumables.
The Project Proponent must identify all equipment and consumables used in the biomass conversion and storage process, identify appropriate cradle to grave emission factors, and allocate the emissions to removals appropriately.
Examples of project-specific materials and equipment 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:
Section 4.1 of the GHG 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.
See GHG Accounting Module for eligibility criteria.
This Protocol provides multiple options for conversion and durable storage of CO2. The Project Proponent can choose from available options when submitting their Project for verification:
CO2Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in saline aquifers.
CO2Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs.
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in mafic and ultramafic formations.
Must be used with the carbonation in the built environment storage module.
Must be used with the ex-situ mineralization in closed engineered systems conversion Module.
Must be used with the dissolved inorganic carbon in oceans storage module.
Must be used with the enhanced weathering in closed engineered systems conversion Module.
Isometric would like to thank following contributors to previous versions this Protocol and relevant Modules:
This section provides guidance for Projects which capture fossil CO2, whether through mixed feedstocks or co-firing with fossil fuels.
Note that for the purposes of this Protocol, geologic CO2 liberated from minerals is considered fossil CO2 unless it can be demonstrated that the CO2 is of biogenic origin and mineralized by the Project (for example, as a sorbent).
For CO2 leaks prior to the point of quantification of [math: CO_{2}e_{Storage}] (according to the storage Module), for eligible biogenic CO2 there is no penalty for emitting CO2, as in the counterfactual scenario this CO2 would have entered the atmosphere.
However, whether emitted fossil CO2 is considered within the system boundary is dependent on The Project type:
Once fossil CO2 is durably stored by the Project, any emission of CO2 from the storage reservoir attributable to the Project is considered a reversal, regardless of [math: F_{B}], excluding fossil CO2 that can be robustly demonstrated to be part of the baseline scenario (see Appendix B2: Baselines), in agreement with Isometric and the VVB.
For quantification of the fossil component of any mixed CO2 emission from the Project, use Equation A1.
[math: CO_{2}e_{{Misc, Fossil}} = (1-F_B) \cdot CO_{2}e_{Misc}]
(Equation A1)
Where
For guidance on the construction of a baseline for a Project that is drawing a narrow system boundary, see Appendix D4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module v1.3. The concept of Baseline Feedstock Consumption rate can be applied to drawing a baseline fossil fuel usage. Usage of fossil fuels above this rate must be within the system boundary.
Factors that characterize a robust cap-and-trade policy include:
Currently the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which covers the 27 EU member nations as well as Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein; and the UK Emissions Trading Scheme are the only cap-and-trade jurisdiction approved as sufficiently rigorous under this Protocol.
This risk assessment identifies the pathway (A collection of Removal or Reduction processes that have mechanisms in common.) 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 Projectproject, 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.
Projects using this Protocol have the option of a number of storage modules. The typical buffer pool contributions and the rationale are indicated in the relevant storage module: typically, geologic storage is considered Very Low Risk Level (leading to a 1% buffer pool).
If Reversals are not directly observable (i.e., all storage is as carbonated materials in the built environment and/or DIC in an open system), the Project's Risk of Reversal is automatically "No observable risk." Such Projects do not need to complete this questionnaire, but must still maintain a monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Protocol. Please note storage as carbonated materials in the built environment also requires a Project-specific calculation of reversal risk and uncertainty discount.
The risk score, as determined by the Risk of Reversal Questionnaire, will determine a project’s buffer pool (A common and recognized insurance mechanism among Registries allowing Credits to be set aside (in this case by Isometric) to compensate for Reversals which may occur in the future.) 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 Protocolprotocol, 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 | Proceed to questions 2- | Proceed to questions 8- |
2 | Is the carbon being stored in an impermeable geologic system? (e.g., salt cavern) | Proceed to questions 8- | Add 1 to Risk Score and proceed to questions 3- |
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: | 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 in excess of proposed buffer pool size? | 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 |
Note the Risk Score at any step cannot be negative.
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:
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
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, X., Xiao, H., Azarabadi, H., Song, J., Wu, X., Chen, X., and Lackner, K. S. (2020). Sorbents for the Direct Capture of CO2 from Ambient Air. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 59, 6984–7006. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201906756↩
Custelcean, R. (2022). Direct Air Capture of CO2 Using Solvents. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 13, 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-092120-023936↩
Fujikawa, S., and Selyanchyn, R. (2022). Direct air capture by membranes. MRS Bulletin, 47, 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1557/s43577-022-00313-6↩
Renfrew, S. E., Starr, 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. (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 Mazzotti, M. (2021). Life Cycle Assessment of Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage with Low-Carbon Energy Sources. Environmental Science & Technology, 55, 11397–11411. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03263↩
Ricks, W., Xu, Q., and Jenkins, J. D. (2023). 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: Process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges. Energy & Environmental Science, 15, 1360–1405. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EE03523A↩
For example, 49 CFR §195.402 - Transportation of Hazardous Liquids via Pipeline: Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies, 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://carboncreditquality.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. doi:10.2760/73253. 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, T.-V., Choi, I.-Y., Son, Y.-S., and Kim, J.-C. (2016). A review on non-dispersive infrared gas sensors: Improvement of sensor detection limit and interference correction. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 231, 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.040↩
Sandoval-Bohorquez, V. S., Rozo, E. A. V., and Baldovino-Medrano, V. G. (2020). A method for the highly accurate quantification of gas streams by on-line chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A, 1626, 461355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461355↩
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. doi:10.2760/73253. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC126383↩