Equal Opportunity for Biomass in Greenhouse Gas Accounting of CO2 Capture and Storage: A Step Towards More Cost-Effective Climate Change Mitigation Regimes

  • Stefan GrönkvistEmail author
  • Kenneth Möllersten
  • Kim Pingoud


Carbon dioxide capture and permanent storage (CCS) is one of the most frequently discussed technologies with the potential to mitigate climate change. The natural target for CCS has been the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil energy sources. However, CCS has also been suggested in combination with biomass during recent years. Given that the impact on the earth's radiative balance is the same whether CO2 emissions of a fossil or a biomass origin are captured and stored away from the atmosphere, we argue that an equal reward should be given for the CCS, independent of the origin of the CO2. The guidelines that provide assistance for the national greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting under the Kyoto Protocol have not considered CCS from biomass (biotic CCS) and it appears that it is not possible to receive emission credits for biotic CCS under the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, i.e., 2008–2012. We argue that it would be unwise to exclude this GHG mitigation alternative from the competition with other GHG mitigation options. We also propose a feasible approach as to how emission credits for biotic CCS could be included within a future accounting framework.


biomass carbon capture and storage CCS GHG accounting carbon accounting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Apps, M., Karjalainen, T., Marland, G. and Schlamadinger, B.: 1997, Accounting System Considerations: CO 2 Emissions from Forests, Forest Products, and Land-Use Change, A Statement from Edmonton. Alberta, Canada, 28–30 July 1997. See also:
  2. Azar, C., Lindgren, K., Larson, E.D. and Möllersten, K.: 2005, ‘Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass – Costs and potential role in stabilising the atmosphere’, Climatic Change, Article in Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bode, S. and Jung, M.: 2004, On the Integration of Carbon Capture and Storage into the International Climate Regime, HWWA Discussion Paper 303, Hamburg Institute of International Economics, Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, S., Lim, B. and Schlamadinger, B.: 1998, IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories–Evaluating Approaches for Estimating Net Emissions of Carbon Dioxide from Forest Harvesting and Wood Products, Meeting Report, Dakar, Senegal, 5 – 7 May. See also:
  5. Chladna, Z., Chladny, M., Möllersten, K. and Obersteiner, M.: 2004, Investment Under Multiple Uncertainties: The Case of Future Pulp and Paper Mills, Interim Report, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  6. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy): 1999, Carbon Sequestration, Research and Development. A 1999 Report by DOE's Office of Fossil Energy and Office of Science, Washington, USA. See also:
  7. Grönkvist, S., Bryngelsson, M. and Westermark, M.: 2004, ‘Oxygen efficiency with regards to carbon capture’, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Efficiency, Costs, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy and Process Systems (ECOS 2004), Guanajuato, Mexico, July 7–9.Google Scholar
  8. Hare, B. and Meinshausen, M.: 2004, How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided?, PIK Report No. 93, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Hawkins, D.G.: 2003, ‘Passing Gas: Policy implications of leakage from geologic carbon storage sites’, in J. Gale and J. Kaya (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Kyoto, Japan, Elsevier, pp. 249–254.Google Scholar
  10. IEA (International Energy Agency): 2003, Key World Energy Statistics 2003, Paris, France. See also:
  11. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 1997, Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, UK Meteorological Office, Bracknell, United Kingdom. See also:
  12. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 2000, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan. See also:
  13. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, UK. See also:
  14. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 2002, Proceedings of the Workshop for Carbon Capture and Storage, Regina, Canada, 18–21 November. See also:
  15. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 2003, Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan. See also:
  16. Keith, D.: 2001, ‘Sinks, energy crops and land use: Coherent climate policy demands an integrated analysis of biomass’, Climatic Change 49(1–2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keith, D.W. and Rhodes, J.S.: 2002, ‘Bury, burn or both: A two-for-one deal on biomass carbon and energy’, Climatic Change 54(3), 375–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lackner, K.S.: 2003, ‘A guide to CO2 sequestration’, Science 300(5626), 1677–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Metzger, R.A., Benford, G. and Hoffert, M.I.: 2002, ‘To bury or to burn: Optimum use of crop residues to reduce atmospheric CO2’, Climatic Change 54, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Möllersten, K. and Yan, J.: 2001, ‘Economic evaluation of biomass-based energy systems with CO2 capture and sequestration in kraft pulp mills – The influence of the price of CO2 emission quota’, World Resource Review 13(4), 509–525.Google Scholar
  21. Möllersten, K., Yan, J. and Westermark, M.: 2003a, ‘Potential and cost-effectiveness of CO2 reductions through energy measures in Swedish pulp and paper mills’, Energy 28(7), 691–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Möllersten, K., Yan, J. and Moreira, J.R.: 2003b, ‘Potential market niches for biomass energy with CO2 capture and storage–Opportunities for energy supply with negative CO2 emissions’, Biomass and Bioenergy 25(3), 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Obersteiner, M., Azar, C., Kauppi, P., Möllersten, K., Moreira, J., Nilsson, S., Read, P., Riahi, K., Schlamadinger, B., Yamagata, Y., Yan, J. and van Ypersele, J.P.: 2001, ‘Managing climate risk’, Science 294(5543), 786–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD/IEA (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency): 2002, Solutions for the 21st Century, Zero Emission Technologies for Fossil Fuels, Technology Status Report, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  25. Okimori, Y., Ogawa, M. and Takahashi, F.: 2003, ‘Potential of CO2 emission reductions by carbonizing biomass waste from industrial tree plantations in South Sumatra, Indonesia’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 8, 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pingoud, K., Schlamadinger, B., Grönkvist, S., Brown, S., Cowie, A. and Marland, G.: 2004, Approaches for Inclusion of Harvested Wood Products in Future GHG Inventories under the UNFCCC, and Their Consistency with the Overall UNFCCC Inventory Reporting Framework, IEA Bioenergy, Task 38: Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems. See also:
  27. Read, P. and Lermit, J.: 2005, ‘Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): A sequential decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change’, Energy 30(14), 2654–2671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change): 2003, Estimation, Reporting and Accounting of Harvested Wood Products, Technical Paper, FCCC/TP/2003/7, October 27. See also:

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Grönkvist
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kenneth Möllersten
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kim Pingoud
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology/Division for Energy ProcessesRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria
  3. 3.Division of Energy Engineering, Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical EngineeringLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  4. 4.Finnish Forest Research InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  5. 5.VTT ProcessesVTTFinland

Personalised recommendations