Technologies that both remove carbon from the atmosphere and generate valuable products involve extra considerations when assessing costs and emissions.
Great article on carbon accounting. If people are interested. We make a carbon accounting,systems attribution software, that models these flows and allocations. Can be used for MRV. We make it free to Start-ups that have raised less than $10m. carbonsig.com Model any pathway, products, or co-products, map to methodology for MRV, DMRV support. We have digitally twinned 23 integrated chemicals facilties etc., . will be presenting at IETA florence, Italy April 16-18th. carbonsig.com Reach out. Being looked at by 1Pointfive.com our parent firm building the world's largest DAC 500K tons under construction. CarbonSig will be spun out as stand alone VC backed company.
Nick, that sounds like a promising answer to my reply to Grant. I should look at this software, as I had an investor do the calculations (as I did) and came up with the conclusion that a new methodology protocol was viable. However, to get access to the report the investor has demanded $10,000. I like your idea of free-to-try as we are still raising and underfunded for that sort of spend.
However, I have been through it in detail to check parallels with the complex carbon capture processes inherent in a series of projects we are developing and ready to build once we have financing. Carbon credits are key to its funding. I am stuck on the nomenclature to describe it, not to mention the carbon accounting and emissions allocation steps in the process of applying for carbon credits. They are both novel and complicated, even more so if I understand your article.
For example, I look at these naming conventions:
1. CCUS has a poor reputation as it's inextricably linked to the capture of fossil fuel combustion and its captured CO2 being directed to EOR.
2. BECCS comes closer but implies a single step of bioenergy production and its capture and storage.
3. BECCUS might add the "U" to indicate the cyclicality within the process of generating credits for enhancing carbon capture by an African Great Lake.
How else do I describe this process below, a new name for a complex protocol?
In (3) above, natural carbon capture by the lake's 2700 km^2 surface, is followed by fixing it in biota through algae growth. Dead algae descend to >400 m depths, forming a sludge. The sludge undergoes anaerobic digestion in deep water that produces CH4 and CO2 in solution. The biomethane, present as 20% by volume of gas in situ, can be recovered by our process for energy supply for power generation and some biomethane for use as natural gas. Pipeline gas is a new option, mainly for cooking, in two countries that use charcoal for 99% of all cooking. But the carbon balance is more complicated than that. The 80% of gas lifted from deep water is CO2, which can be separated out and sold as megatons of industrial-scale feedstock annually, or returned to deep water where the multi-millennia carbon storage potential is 5 gigatons. Biomethane usage for power generation produces CO2 off-gas, which can be fully captured by water scrubbing and stored in the lake's depths. On top of that, cooking gas usage is cheaper than charcoal, so it can offset most of the massive deforestation caused by charcoal production and the population cooking with it. Preservation of the vast Congo Equatorial Forest is only possible through finding alternatives to charcoal, the cheapest of which is biogas. Forest preservation is only possible with cheaper alternatives to charcoal.
While complex sounding, the above processes are manageable as a low-impact energy cycle. The motivation is that the lake is approaching a high-danger period in the build-up of methane and CO2 in its depths, approaching gas saturation and limnic gas eruption. This catastrophic event can be triggered by a volcanic eruption and spill of lava deep into the lake. The two volcanoes on the lake's north shore are among the most active on Earth, coming close to causing the lake's eruption in events in 2002 and 2020.
The rationale for doing this emissions reduction project is embedded in three main outcomes:
1. People's safety, where 5 million people's lives are at risk from an eruption of toxic gas.
2. Two countries transition to better than net zero status by 2030 by mitigating a major gas eruption and gigatons of emissions reduction.
3. Carbon credits for emissions reduction, power, and cooking fuel can make energy costs more affordable and stable, with costs cut to below 50% of present tariffs.
Inherent in all of this is the carbon accounting and emissions allocation in a model to show the integrated impact. Perhaps the first step is to see where such a system can land in terms of naming convention. What do you think?
Thanks for reading Philip! It sounds like you're running into an issue related to process classification that many carbon removal innovators with unique systems do. When it's difficult to easily slot your system into an existing category, it can be that much more complicated to communicate about it and even attract interest from funders.
My gut reaction is that your process would fall somewhere between BECCS, BiCRS (biomass with carbon removal and storage), and marine CDR as you would be generating heat/electricity, using biomass to enable carbon removal, and operating in conjunction with an aquatic ecosystem. If the carbon is being captured and released by algae, then you'd be entering the algae CDR world as well and could maybe say "natural algae-based CDR" or something like that.
The concepts presented in the post should be relevant to your system if you are producing both verifiable carbon removal and salable electricity, heat, or biomethane.
Great article on carbon accounting. If people are interested. We make a carbon accounting,systems attribution software, that models these flows and allocations. Can be used for MRV. We make it free to Start-ups that have raised less than $10m. carbonsig.com Model any pathway, products, or co-products, map to methodology for MRV, DMRV support. We have digitally twinned 23 integrated chemicals facilties etc., . will be presenting at IETA florence, Italy April 16-18th. carbonsig.com Reach out. Being looked at by 1Pointfive.com our parent firm building the world's largest DAC 500K tons under construction. CarbonSig will be spun out as stand alone VC backed company.
Nick, that sounds like a promising answer to my reply to Grant. I should look at this software, as I had an investor do the calculations (as I did) and came up with the conclusion that a new methodology protocol was viable. However, to get access to the report the investor has demanded $10,000. I like your idea of free-to-try as we are still raising and underfunded for that sort of spend.
here is an example of a hydrogen attestation: https://carbonsig.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CS_brochure_Hydrogen_industry_Letter_online.pdf the user can map and model any pathway etc. and attach supporting documentation or verification. Should help with modelling pre-project, or building a systems template that supports a methodology making VVB and Issuer review easier.
Phew Grant, this was a heavy read!
However, I have been through it in detail to check parallels with the complex carbon capture processes inherent in a series of projects we are developing and ready to build once we have financing. Carbon credits are key to its funding. I am stuck on the nomenclature to describe it, not to mention the carbon accounting and emissions allocation steps in the process of applying for carbon credits. They are both novel and complicated, even more so if I understand your article.
For example, I look at these naming conventions:
1. CCUS has a poor reputation as it's inextricably linked to the capture of fossil fuel combustion and its captured CO2 being directed to EOR.
2. BECCS comes closer but implies a single step of bioenergy production and its capture and storage.
3. BECCUS might add the "U" to indicate the cyclicality within the process of generating credits for enhancing carbon capture by an African Great Lake.
How else do I describe this process below, a new name for a complex protocol?
In (3) above, natural carbon capture by the lake's 2700 km^2 surface, is followed by fixing it in biota through algae growth. Dead algae descend to >400 m depths, forming a sludge. The sludge undergoes anaerobic digestion in deep water that produces CH4 and CO2 in solution. The biomethane, present as 20% by volume of gas in situ, can be recovered by our process for energy supply for power generation and some biomethane for use as natural gas. Pipeline gas is a new option, mainly for cooking, in two countries that use charcoal for 99% of all cooking. But the carbon balance is more complicated than that. The 80% of gas lifted from deep water is CO2, which can be separated out and sold as megatons of industrial-scale feedstock annually, or returned to deep water where the multi-millennia carbon storage potential is 5 gigatons. Biomethane usage for power generation produces CO2 off-gas, which can be fully captured by water scrubbing and stored in the lake's depths. On top of that, cooking gas usage is cheaper than charcoal, so it can offset most of the massive deforestation caused by charcoal production and the population cooking with it. Preservation of the vast Congo Equatorial Forest is only possible through finding alternatives to charcoal, the cheapest of which is biogas. Forest preservation is only possible with cheaper alternatives to charcoal.
While complex sounding, the above processes are manageable as a low-impact energy cycle. The motivation is that the lake is approaching a high-danger period in the build-up of methane and CO2 in its depths, approaching gas saturation and limnic gas eruption. This catastrophic event can be triggered by a volcanic eruption and spill of lava deep into the lake. The two volcanoes on the lake's north shore are among the most active on Earth, coming close to causing the lake's eruption in events in 2002 and 2020.
The rationale for doing this emissions reduction project is embedded in three main outcomes:
1. People's safety, where 5 million people's lives are at risk from an eruption of toxic gas.
2. Two countries transition to better than net zero status by 2030 by mitigating a major gas eruption and gigatons of emissions reduction.
3. Carbon credits for emissions reduction, power, and cooking fuel can make energy costs more affordable and stable, with costs cut to below 50% of present tariffs.
Inherent in all of this is the carbon accounting and emissions allocation in a model to show the integrated impact. Perhaps the first step is to see where such a system can land in terms of naming convention. What do you think?
Thanks for reading Philip! It sounds like you're running into an issue related to process classification that many carbon removal innovators with unique systems do. When it's difficult to easily slot your system into an existing category, it can be that much more complicated to communicate about it and even attract interest from funders.
My gut reaction is that your process would fall somewhere between BECCS, BiCRS (biomass with carbon removal and storage), and marine CDR as you would be generating heat/electricity, using biomass to enable carbon removal, and operating in conjunction with an aquatic ecosystem. If the carbon is being captured and released by algae, then you'd be entering the algae CDR world as well and could maybe say "natural algae-based CDR" or something like that.
The concepts presented in the post should be relevant to your system if you are producing both verifiable carbon removal and salable electricity, heat, or biomethane.