storage - negative emissions from bioenergy on the horizon <body> --------------
Contact Us       Consulting       Projects       Our Goals       About Us
home » Archive »
Nature Blog Network

    Toyota Tsusho Corp., Ohta Oil Mill Co. and Toyota Chemical Engineering Co., say it and two other firms have jointly developed a technology to produce biodiesel fuel at lower cost. Biodiesel is made by blending methanol into plant-derived oil. The new technology requires smaller amounts of methanol and alkali catalysts than conventional technologies. In addition, the new technology makes water removal facilities unnecessary. JCN Network - January 22, 2007.

    Finland's Metso Paper and SWISS COMBI - W. Kunz dryTec A.G. have entered a licence agreement for the SWISS COMBI belt dryer KUVO, which allows biomass to be dried in a low temperature environment and at high capacity, both for pulp & paper and bioenergy applications. Kauppalehti - January 22, 2007.

    Record warm summers cause extreme ice melt in Greenland: an international team of scientists, led by Dr Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, has found that recent warm summers have caused the most extreme Greenland ice melting in 50 years. The new research provides further evidence of a key impact of global warming and helps scientists place recent satellite observations of Greenland´s shrinking ice mass in a longer-term climatic context. Findings are published in the 15 January 2008 issue of Journal of Climate. University of Sheffield - January 15, 2007.

    Japan's Tsukishima Kikai Co. and Marubeni Corp. have together clinched an order from Oenon Holdings Inc. for a plant that will make bioethanol from rice. The Oenon group will invest around 4.4 billion yen (US$40.17 million) in the project, half of which will be covered by a subsidy from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The plant will initially produce bioethanol from imported rice, with plans to use Hokkaido-grown rice in the future. It will produce 5 million liters per year starting in 2009, increasing output to 15m liters in 2011. The facility will be able to produce as much as 50,000 liters of bioethanol from 125 tons of rice each day. Trading Markets - January 11, 2007.

    PetroSun, Inc. announced today that its subsidiary, PetroSun BioFuels Refining, has entered into a JV to construct and operate a biodiesel refinery near Coolidge, Arizona. The feedstock for the refinery will be algal oil produced by PetroSun BioFuels at algae farms to be located in Arizona. The refinery will have a capacity of thirty million gallons and will produce 100% renewable biodiesel. PetroSun BioFuels will process the residual algae biomass into ethanol. MarketWire - January 10, 2007.

    BlueFire Ethanol Fuels Inc, which develops and operates carbohydrate-based transportation fuel production facilities, has secured capital liquidity for corporate overhead and continued project development in the value of US$15 million with Quercus, an environmentally focused trust. BlueFire Ethanol Fuels - January 09, 2007.

    Some $170 billion in new technology development projects, infrastructure equipment and construction, and biofuel refineries will result from the ethanol production standards contained the new U.S. Energy Bill, says BIO, the global Biotechnology Industry Organization. According to Brent Erickson, BIO's executive vice president "Such a new energy infrastructure has not occurred in more than 100 years. We are at the point where we were in the 1850s when kerosene was first distilled and began to replace whale oil. This technology will be coming so fast that what we say today won't be true in two years." Chemical & Engineering News - January 07, 2007.

    Scottish and Southern Energy plc, the UK's second largest power company, has completed the acquisition of Slough Heat and Power Ltd from SEGRO plc for a total cash consideration of £49.25m. The 101MW CHP plant is the UK’s largest dedicated biomass energy facility fueled by wood chips, biomass and waste paper. Part of the plant is contracted under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation and part of it produces over 200GWH of output qualifying for Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs), which is equivalent to around 90MW of wind generation. Scottish & Southern Energy - January 2, 2007.

    PetroChina Co Ltd, the country's largest oil and gas producer, plans to invest 800 million yuan to build an ethanol plant in Nanchong, in the southwestern province of Sichuan, its parent China National Petroleum Corp said. The ethanol plant has a designed annual capacity of 100,000 tons. ABCMoneyNews - December 21, 2007.

    Mexico passed legislation to promote biofuels last week, offering unspecified support to farmers that grow crops for the production of any renewable fuel. Agriculture Minister Alberto Cardenas said Mexico could expand biodiesel faster than ethanol. More soon. Reuters - December 20, 2007.

    Oxford Catalysts has placed an order worth approximately €700,000 (US$1 million) with the German company Amtec for the purchase of two Spider16 high throughput screening reactors. The first will be used to speed up the development of catalysts for hydrodesulphurisation (HDS). The second will be used to further the development of catalysts for use in gas to liquid (GTL) and Fischer-Tropsch processes which can be applied to next generation biofuels. AlphaGalileo - December 18, 2007.

    According to the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), Brazil's production of sugarcane will increase from 514,1 million tonnes this season, to a record 561,8 million tonnes in the 2008/09 cyclus - an increase of 9.3%. New numbers are also out for the 2007 harvest in Brazil's main sugarcane growing region, the Central-South: a record 425 million tonnes compared to 372,7 million tonnes in 2006, or a 14% increase. The estimate was provided by Unica – the União da Indústria de Cana-de-Açúcar. Jornal Cana - December 16, 2007.

    The University of East Anglia and the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre have today released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850. The announcement comes as the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Michel Jarraud, speaks at the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Bali. Eurekalert - December 13, 2007.

    The Royal Society of Chemistry has announced it will launch a new journal in summer 2008, Energy & Environmental Science, which will distinctly address both energy and environmental issues. In recognition of the importance of research in this subject, and the need for knowledge transfer between scientists throughout the world, from launch the RSC will make issues of Energy & Environmental Science available free of charge to readers via its website, for the first 18 months of publication. This journal will highlight the important role that the chemical sciences have in solving the energy problems we are facing today. It will link all aspects of energy and the environment by publishing research relating to energy conversion and storage, alternative fuel technologies, and environmental science. AlphaGalileo - December 10, 2007.

    Dutch researcher Bas Bougie has developed a laser system to investigate soot development in diesel engines. Small soot particles are not retained by a soot filter but are, however, more harmful than larger soot particles. Therefore, soot development needs to be tackled at the source. Laser Induced Incandescence is a technique that reveals exactly where soot is generated and can be used by project partners to develop cleaner diesel engines. Terry Meyer, an Iowa State University assistant professor of mechanical engineering, is using similar laser technology to develop advanced sensors capable of screening the combustion behavior and soot characteristics specifically of biofuels. Eurekalert - December 7, 2007.

    Lithuania's first dedicated biofuel terminal has started operating in Klaipeda port. At the end of November 2007, the stevedoring company Vakaru krova (VK) started activities to manage transshipments. The infrastructure of the biodiesel complex allows for storage of up to 4000 cubic meters of products. During the first year, the terminal plans to transship about 70.000 tonnes of methyl ether, after that the capacities of the terminal would be increased. Investments to the project totaled €2.3 million. Agrimarket - December 5, 2007.

    New Holland supports the use of B100 biodiesel in all equipment with New Holland-manufactured diesel engines, including electronic injection engines with common rail technology. Overall, nearly 80 percent of the tractor and equipment manufacturer's New Holland-branded products with diesel engines are now available to operate on B100 biodiesel. Tractor and equipment maker John Deere meanwhile clarified its position for customers that want to use biodiesel blends up to B20. Grainnet - December 5, 2007.

    According to Wetlands International, an NGO, the Kyoto Protocol as it currently stands does not take into account possible emissions from palm oil grown on a particular type of land found in Indonesia and Malaysia, namely peatlands. Mongabay - December 5, 2007.

    Malaysia's oil & gas giant Petronas considers entering the biofuels sector. Zamri Jusoh, senior manager of Petronas' petroleum development management unit told reporters "of course our focus is on oil and gas, but I think as we move into the future we cannot ignore the importance of biofuels." AFP - December 5, 2007.

Creative Commons License

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Commission supports carbon capture & storage - negative emissions from bioenergy on the horizon

As part of its ambitious climate and renewables policy, the European Commission supports the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and says it will take them up in the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This is the much needed impulse that will allow for the development of the world's most radically green energy system: the production of negative emissions energy by coupling CCS to biomass instead of coal. Carbon-negative bioenergy systems are the ultimate weapon in the climate fight.

Carbon capture and storage is often discussed in the context of fossil fuels: when CO2 from power plants is captured before or after the production of power, and consequently stored in geological formations, the energy from the use of these fuels becomes relatively clean. Emissions can be reduced to levels equal to those of other renewables. But CCS technologies can become far more radical when they are applied to power plants that utilize renewable biomass or gaseous biofuels instead of coal, oil or natural gas. In this case, such 'bio-energy with carbon storage' (BECS) systems produce heat and power that actually removes CO2 from the atmosphere. No other energy system is capable of this.

The difference is quite extreme (see table). An ordinary coal-fired powered plant generates anywhere between 800 and 1000 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity (gCO2eq/kWh) and thus contributes heavily to the greenhouse effect. When CCS is coupled to such a plant ('clean coal'), emissions can be reduced substantially, down to the level of photovoltaic power systems (around 100 to 150 gCO2eq/kWh). All other renewables are slightly carbon positive over their lifecycles, that is, they contribute tiny amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. Nuclear comes close to being genuinely 'carbon neutral'. But biomass coupled to CCS is 'carbon negative' in a very strong way. Such BECS systems can take up to 1030gCO2eq/kWh out of the atmosphere. This makes them the most radical tool in the fight against climate change.

Systems that yield negative emissions from bioenergy have major advantages over 'clean coal'. When CO2 is geosequestered in formations such as depleted oil & gas fields or saline aquifers, leakage could occur. This is seen as a major risk. But when the CO2 is biogenic in nature, this risk disappears because in case of leakage there would be no net contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Another advantage is that when using biomass as the fuel, very large net negative emissions can be obtained (more than minus 1000gCO2eq/kWh). This is obviously a major advantage when emission reductions get a price and are traded on a market. Researchers have found that BECS systems could compete well with when both coal prices remain at current levels, and when the carbon price hovers at around €30 per ton.

The technologies to make CCS a reality are being developed. The European Commission's formal support will give developers assurances that the technology is being recognized and will play a part in the ETS; this will speed up their emergence. The only real bottleneck for biomass systems coupled to CCS, is the cost of the feedstock. Currently biomass is slightly more costly than coal, but the fossil fuel has been increasing in price rapidly. Over the coming years biomass production and supply chains will become more efficient, substantially lowering the price of the fuel (according to projections by the IEA's Bioenergy Task 40). Coal prices are expected to keep increasing.

Additionally, solid biomass can be imported from countries with a large and highly efficient production potential, mainly found in subtropical and tropical climates, where biomass crops (grasses, plantation trees) grow very well. Shipping the green fuel in bulk to CCS power plants in Europe is not expected to drive up the cost much. Alternatively, biomass can be densified first and then shipped out.

Scientists from the Abrupt Climate Change Strategy group, who studied the system in-depth, have found that when carbon-negative bioenergy systems were to replace coal on a global scale, we could return the atmosphere to its pre-industrial CO2 levels by mid-century. In other words, biomass coupled to CCS can cool the planet. The more we use electricity and heat from BECS systems, the more CO2 we take out of the atmosphere (we are not merely 'reducing' our carbon intensity, we go much further, we go 'negative').

Now that the European Commission supports CCS, it offered an interesting Q & A of the technologies involved, current research efforts, risks, legislative concerns and frameworks, the role of CCS in the ETS, and costs. The document is summarised here:
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The technology
Carbon capture and storage is a suite of technological processes which involve capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the gases discarded by industry and transporting and injecting it into geological formations.

The major application for carbon capture and storage (CCS) is to reduce CO2 emissions from power generation from fossil fuels, principally coal and gas, but CCS can also be applied to CO2-intensive industries such as cement, refineries, iron and steel, petrochemicals, oil and gas processing and others. After capture, the CO2 is transported to a suitable geological formation where it is injected, with the aim of isolating it from the atmosphere for the long term.

There are storage options other than geological storage such as storage in the water column and mineral storage. Storage in the water column is considered to present a high environmental risk and the Commission's proposed directive on CO2 geological storage bans it within the Union. Mineral storage is currently the subject of research. Developments will be kept under review.

How does geological storage work?
There are four main mechanisms which trap CO2 in well-chosen geological formations. The first is structural trapping, which is the presence of an impermeable cap-rock which prevents CO2 to escape from the outset. The second is called residual CO2 trapping where CO2 is trapped by capillary forces in the interstices of the rock formation, which develops about 10 years after injection. The third is solubility trapping where the CO2 dissolves in the water found in the geological formation and sinks because CO2 dissolved in water is heavier than normal water. This becomes important between 10 and 100 years after injection. Finally, mineral trapping happens when dissolved CO2 chemically reacts with the formation rock to produce minerals.

Why the need for CCS?
While energy efficiency and renewables are in the long term the most sustainable solutions both for security of supply and climate, EU and world CO2 emissions cannot be reduced by 50% by 2050 if we do not also use other options such as carbon capture and storage.

Timing is crucial. About a third of existing coal fired power capacity in Europe will be replaced within the next 10 years. Internationally, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico's energy consumption will lead a major global demand increase, which is likely to be met in large part from fossil fuels. The capacity to deal with these very substantial potential emissions must urgently be developed.

Is CCS technically mature?

The separate elements of capture, transport and storage of carbon dioxide have all been demonstrated, but integrating them into a complete CCS process and bringing costs down remain a challenge.

The biggest CO2 storage projects that European companies are involved in are the Sleipner[1] project in the North Sea (Statoil) and the In Salah[2] project in Algeria (Statoil, BP and Sonatrach). Both projects involve stripping CO2 from natural gas – a process which is already carried out before the gas can be sold – and storing it in underground geological formations. The Sleipner project was spurred on by the Norwegian tax on carbon dioxide which was significantly higher than the cost per tonne of CO2 stored in the Sleipner geological formation. The In Salah project was triggered by BP's internal carbon trading system. Other demonstration projects underway are the Vattenfall project at Schwartze Pumpe[3] in Germany which is due to be operational by mid-2008 and the Total CCS project in the Lacq basin in France. The European Technology Platform on Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plant (ETP-ZEP), a stakeholder initiative supported by the Commission, has identified some 15 full-scale demonstration projects that could go ahead once the necessary economic framework is in place.

How much will carbon capture and storage cost?

The cost of CCS involves partly capital investment on equipment to capture, transport and store CO2, and partly the cost of operating this equipment to store the CO2 in practice – such as the amount of energy required to capture, transport and inject the CO2. At current technology prices, up-front investment costs are about 30 to 70 % (i.e. several hundred million euros per plant) greater than for standard plants and operating costs are currently 25 to 75% greater than in non-CCS coal-fired plants. These costs are expected to substantially decrease as the technology is proven on a commercial scale.

When will widespread deployment happen?

Uptake of CCS will depend on the carbon price and the price of the technology. If the price per tonne of CO2 avoided by CCS is lower than the carbon price, then CCS will begin to be deployed. Although both of these prices remain highly uncertain, the climate and energy package will serve to stabilise them to some extent.

The EU Emissions Trading System will recognise CO2 captured, transported and safely stored as not having been emitted. The revision to the system to implement the trading sector's share of the European Union's 20% GHG reduction target should ensure a robust carbon price.

The Communication on Supporting Early Demonstration of Sustainable Power Generation sets out the Commission's commitment to early effective demonstration of CCS and calls for timely and bold industry and public initiatives. The aim of demonstration is to learn from practical integration of the process components on a commercial scale. The enabling legal framework will apply to demonstration projects and all other future CCS projects. With demonstration projects in place, the price of the technology should decrease substantially over the next ten years.

According to the Commission's projections laid out in the Impact Assessment of the proposal for a directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide the uptake of CCS on a commercial scale is likely to begin some time around 2020 and increase substantially after that.

Who will bear the cost?

The proposal to enable CCS will not impose additional costs over and above those required to meet the 20% greenhouse gas reduction target. Once CCS is mature, it will be for individual operators to decide whether to release emissions and pay ETS allowances to cover them or use CCS to reduce their emissions and their ETS liabilities. The maximum an operator will pay will be largely set by the carbon price: CCS will only be deployed if the cost per tonne of CO2 avoided is lower than the carbon price. In this respect the carbon price internalises the climate cost of CO2 emissions. Depending on the conditions in the market in question, operators may pass on a portion of the carbon cost to consumers. (See MEMOs on effort sharing and revised ETS proposal)

In the early phase, CCS demonstration projects will require additional finance over and above the incentive provided by the carbon market because the current cost of the technology is substantially higher than the carbon price. To catalyse this additional finance, decisive financial commitment from industry will be crucial and Member State support measures are also likely to play a major role.

In view of the importance of early demonstration of CCS in power generation and given that a number of those projects may require some public funding, the Commission is ready to view favourably the use of state aid for covering the additional costs related to CCS demonstration in power generation projects. This commitment is reflected in the revised Environmental State Aid Guidelines adopted with the package.

Will CCS be made mandatory?

Not at this stage. The Commission proposal enables carbon capture and storage by providing a framework to manage environmental risks and remove barriers in existing legislation. Whether CCS is taken up in practice will be determined by the carbon price and the cost of the technology. It will be up to each operator to decide whether it makes commercial sense to deploy CCS.

The Impact Assessment for the proposed directive examines the implications of making CCS mandatory. While there will be some early CCS deployment, this would come at significant cost and would provide no clear advantage neither in stimulating technological development and improving air quality nor in promoting the earlier uptake of CCS by non-EU countries. Making CCS mandatory would also run counter to the market-based approach of the European Trading System. Also, mandating a technology that is yet to be demonstrated on a commercial scale presents risks that are not currently justified.

However, this situation may evolve. To meet GHG reductions beyond 2020, the deployment of CCS will be essential, and by 2015 the technological options will be clearer. So if commercial take-up of CCS is slow, policy-makers will be obliged to look again at the compulsory application of CCS technology.

How will CCS be treated under the EU Emissions Trading System?

The ETS will provide the main incentive for CCS deployment. CO2 captured and safely stored according to the EU legal framework will be considered as not emitted under the ETS. In Phase II of the ETS (2008-12) CCS installations can be opted in. For Phase III (2013 onwards), under the proposal to amend the Emissions Trading Directive, capture, transport and storage installations would be explicitly included in Annex I of the ETS.

How much will CCS contribute to reducing CO2 emissions in the EU?

The precise contribution will depend on the uptake of CCS, but projections made for the Impact Assessment of the proposed directive show that, with CCS enabled under the ETS and assuming a 20% GHG reduction by 2020 and further significant progress towards our mid-century objective by 2030, 7 million tonnes of CO2 could be captured in 2020, rising to around 160 Mt in 2030. The CO2 avoided in 2030 would represent around 15% of the reduction required in Europe[4]. Estimates for the potential global contribution are similar, in the order of about 14% by 2030[5].

What type of sites will be selected and how?

There are two main kinds of geological formation that can be used for CO2 storage: depleted oil and gas fields, and saline aquifers (groundwater bodies whose salt content makes them unsuitable for drinking water or agriculture).

Site selection is the crucial stage in designing a storage project. Member States have the right to determine which areas of their territory are free to be used for CO2 storage. Where exploration is required to generate the necessary information, exploration permits must be issued on a non-discriminatory basis, valid for 2 years with the possibility of extension.

A detailed analysis of the potential site must be carried out according to criteria specified in Annex I of the proposal, including modelling of the expected behaviour of CO2 following injection. The site can be used only if this analysis shows that under the proposed conditions of use there is no significant risk of leakage, and that no significant health or environmental impacts are likely to occur.

The initial analysis of the site is done by the potential operator, who then submits the documentation to the Member State competent authority in the permit application. The competent authority reviews the information and if it satisfied that the condition is met, issues a draft permit decision.

For the early storage projects the proposal includes an additional safeguard. To ensure consistent application of the directive across Europe and promote public confidence in carbon capture and storage the draft permits may be reviewed by the Commission with the assistance of a scientific panel of technical experts. The Commission's opinion will be public, but the final permitting decision remains with the national competent authority according to the subsidiarity principle.

Will storage be allowed outside the EU?

The proposed directive can only regulate storage within the European Union and (if it is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, as the Commission expects to happen, the European Economic Area. Emissions stored in these regions, in accordance with the proposed directive will be considered as not having been emitted under the ETS. Storing CO2 emissions outside the European Union will not be banned, but any emissions so stored will receive no credit under the ETS, thus providing little incentive to store carbon dioxide in this way.

What is the risk of leakage? What will happen if a site leaks CO2?

The risk of leakage will depend very much on the site in question. The IPCC Special Report on CCS concluded that:

'observations...suggest that the fraction [of CO2] retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and likely to exceed 99% over 1000 years'[6].

The key issue is thus the appropriate selection and management of sites. The requirements on site selection are designed to ensure that only sites with a minimal risk of leakage are chosen, and the review of draft permit decisions by the Commission – assisted by an independent scientific panel – will provide additional confidence that the requirements will be implemented consistently across the EU.

A monitoring plan must be set up to verify that the injected CO2 is behaving as expected. If, despite the precautions taken in selecting a site, it does leak in practice, corrective measures must be taken to rectify the situation and return the site to a safe state. Emissions Trading Allowances must be surrendered for any leaked CO2, to compensate for the fact that the stored emissions were credited under the ETS as not emitted when they left the source. Finally, the requirements of the Environmental Liability Directive on repairing local damage to the environment will apply in the case of leakage.

Who will be responsible for inspecting CO2 storage sites?

The competent authority in Member States must ensure that inspections are carried out to verify that the provisions of the proposed directive are observed. Routine inspections must be carried out at least once a year, involving examination of the injection and monitoring facilities and the full range of environmental effects from the storage complex. In addition, non-routine inspections must be carried out if any leakage has been notified, if the operator's annual report to the competent authority shows that the installation is not compliant with the proposed directive, and if there is any other cause for concern.

How is the responsibility for the site ensured in the long term?

Geological storage will extend over much longer periods than the lifespan of an average commercial entity. Arrangements are needed to ensure the long-term stewardship of storage sites. The proposal thus provides for sites to be transferred to Member State control in the long term. However, the polluter pays principle requires that the operator retain responsibility for a site while it presents a significant risk of leakage. Also, rules are needed to ensure that no distortion of competition arises from different Member State approaches. Under the proposed directive a storage site shall be transferred to the state when all available evidence indicates that the CO2 will be completely contained for the indefinite future. As this is the second key decision in the lifecycle of a storage site (the first being the decision to permit the site for use), a Commission review is proposed.


European Commission website on carbon capture and storage.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.

Biopact: EU Commission presents climate and renewable energy package - January 23, 2008

Biopact: Commission presents European Strategic Energy Technology Plan: towards a low carbon future - November 23, 2007

Scientific literature on negative emissions from biomass:

H. Audus and P. Freund, "Climate Change Mitigation by Biomass Gasificiation Combined with CO2 Capture and Storage", IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme.

James S. Rhodesa and David W. Keithb, "Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage", Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 29, Issue 6, December 2005, Pages 440-450.

Noim Uddin and Leonardo Barreto, "Biomass-fired cogeneration systems with CO2 capture and storage", Renewable Energy, Volume 32, Issue 6, May 2007, Pages 1006-1019, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2006.04.009

Christian Azar, Kristian Lindgren, Eric Larson and Kenneth Möllersten, "Carbon Capture and Storage From Fossil Fuels and Biomass – Costs and Potential Role in Stabilizing the Atmosphere", Climatic Change, Volume 74, Numbers 1-3 / January, 2006, DOI 10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7

Further reading on negative emissions bioenergy and biofuels:
Peter Read and Jonathan Lermit, "Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage (BECS): a Sequential Decision Approach to the threat of Abrupt Climate Change", Energy, Volume 30, Issue 14, November 2005, Pages 2654-2671.

Stefan Grönkvist, Kenneth Möllersten, Kim Pingoud, "Equal Opportunity for Biomass in Greenhouse Gas Accounting of CO2 Capture and Storage: A Step Towards More Cost-Effective Climate Change Mitigation Regimes", Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 11, Numbers 5-6 / September, 2006, DOI 10.1007/s11027-006-9034-9

Further reading on potential applications:
Biopact: Pre-combustion CO2 capture from biogas - the way forward? - March 31, 2007

Biopact: "A closer look at the revolutionary coal+biomass-to-liquids with carbon storage project" - September 13, 2007

Biopact: New plastic-based, nano-engineered CO2 capturing membrane developed - September 19, 2007

Biopact: Plastic membrane to bring down cost of carbon capture - August 15, 2007

Biopact: Pre-combustion CO2 capture from biogas - the way forward? - March 31, 2007

Biopact: Towards carbon-negative biofuels: US DOE awards $66.7 million for large-scale CO2 capture and storage from ethanol plant - December 19, 2007

Biopact: EU launches DECARBit project to research advanced pre-combustion CO2 capture from power plants - November 21, 2007


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home