Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
This methodology is composed of modules, which allows Project Developers to choose the relevant modules for their project depending on their specific operations.
Modules are arranged into three module categories: carbon capture, transformation, and carbon storage. The modules available in the Riverse BiCRS methodology are presented in the figure below.
Modules are like mini-methodologies that only cover a part of the project life-cycle. Combining the relevant modules for a project results in a complete picture of eligibility criteria, GHG reduction quantification requirements, required data, monitoring plans, and other instructions for Riverse certification.
For a given project, multiple modules from each Module category may be selected if they are relevant to the project. For example, most projects will likely use both Transportation and Infrastructure and machinery modules from the Transformation category. At least one module must be selected from the carbon capture, transformation, and carbon storage categories.
Modules are compiled seamlessly on the Riverse Certification Platform. Project Developers only need to select the modules that are relevant for their project.
For example, the figure below represents a project that pyrolyzes biomass feedstock to produce biochar, which is then applied to agricultural soils. In this case, five modules are combined to represent the whole project. The eligibility criteria requirements from each module can be compiled to obtain the full list of eligibility requirements the Project Developer must respond to.
Module category
This methodology covers projects that transform and store biomass into a permanent carbon removal solution, also called biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS). This methodology is composed of modules, which give more specific requirements and instructions for different parts of project operations. This methodology document provides general requirements and instructions that are relevant for all BiCRS projects, regardless of the specific modules they use.
Methodology name
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS)
Version
1.0
Methodology ID
RIV-BICRS-GEN-V1.0
Release date
December 4th, 2024
Status
In use
See more details on how modules are organized in the BiCRS home page.
It is widely acknowledged that in addition to reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and permanently sequestered. One way to do this is through , which involves a range of technologies that use plant biomass to remove carbon dioxide (CO) from the atmosphere and store that CO underground or in long-lived products.
This methodology document outlines the general requirements for BiCRS projects certified under the Riverse Standard Rules. These projects are eligible for removal Riverse Carbon Credits (RCCs) related to their carbon removals, and avoidance RCCs as a result of generating valuable co-products. Further details for specific technologies are available in module documents.
All projects certified under this methodology must convert biomass into permanent carbon storage solutions.
Avoidance Riverse Carbon Credits (RCCs) may be issued for eligible project activities, such as energy production.
Any share of removals coming from non-biogenic carbon are not eligible for removal RCCs under this methodology.
Carbon removals shall be ensured for at least 100 years, according to the Riverse Standard Rules permanence criteria. Each project shall transparently disclose their permanence horizon of 100 or 1000+ years.
Technologies that are not detailed in a module, but that meet the general requirements of the present methodology, may be considered on a case by case basis.
The default project scope shall be defined in the Carbon storage modules.
The eligibility criteria requirements that are applicable to all projects under this methodology are detailed in the sections below. Other eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the accompanying modules and Riverse Standard Rules:
To demonstrate additionality, Project Developers shall perform regulatory surplus analysis, plus either investment or barrier analysis, using the Riverse Additionality Template.
Regulatory surplus analysis shall demonstrate that there are no regulations that require or mandate project activities (for removal and avoidance activities). It is acceptable if regulations promote or set targets for these activities, because the resulting increase in activities shall be accounted for in the baseline scenario.
At the European Union level, projects automatically pass the regulatory surplus analysis, which has been conducted by the Riverse Climate Team. Project Developers are only required to provide a country-level regulatory surplus analysis.
Investment analysis may be used to prove that revenue from carbon finance is necessary to make the project investment a financially viable and interesting option. The investment may cover:
The creation and launching of new sites
Expansion of capacity of existing activities
Expansion by installing new processes
Business plans shall be provided as initial proof for investment analysis. During verification, audited financial statements shall be used to demonstrate that the initial estimates from the business plan were reasonable, and that carbon finance was used as initially described for the expected investment.
For launching brand new sites, additionality can be simply demonstrated if the business plan shows that carbon finance is expected to make up at least 80% of the company’s revenue, as detailed in the Riverse Additionality Template.
Note that for investments in expansion, only the additional carbon reductions enabled by the expansion shall be eligible for Riverse Carbon Credits.
Barrier analysis may be used to prove that the project faces financial, institutional, or technological barriers to ongoing operations that can only be overcome using carbon finance. Examples include but are not limited to:
Financial barrier: financial analysis demonstrating that the project is not financially viable, evidenced by net cash being lower than the working capital requirements, or proof that the project is not meeting the projected financial targets in the business plans and loan documents, and that carbon finance would make it financially viable.
Institutional barrier: description of new regulation that the project must make costly changes to comply with, financial analysis showing that the project cannot fund the changes on their own, and carbon finance is necessary to make it viable.
For any type of barrier analysis, audited financial statements must be provided as proof. These documents should either demonstrate the financial status to prove financial barriers, or show that the project could not independently fund solutions to overcome institutional or technological barriers.
Project Developers shall sign the Riverse MRV & Registry Terms & Conditions, committing to follow the requirements outlined in the Riverse Standard Rules, including not double using or double issuing carbon credits.
BiCRS projects have a risk of double issuance of credits if the user of the removal solution and/or operator of the storage site also seeks credit issuance. Project Developers shall:
Identify all direct downstream users/buyers/actors in their supply chain, providing the company/organization name, name of an individual contact person at the company/organization, and their contact information (email address at minimum).
Provide proof that measures have been taken to avoid double issuance with those actors, such as through signed agreements, packaging/marketing material stating carbon credits have already been issued, and/or sales contract clauses.
If the Project Developer proves that the removal solution stays within the project scope all the way through storage, and it is never sold or transferred, then the requirements above may be disregarded.
At the validation stage for projects under development, this information may not be determined yet. In this case, upon validation Project Developers shall describe any information available on the expected buyers, and provide signed agreements committing to provide the necessary information upon verification. During the verification stage, Project Developers shall provide the information described above in order to issue RCCs.
Project Developers shall fill in the General BiCRS risk evaluation, in addition to all module-specific risk evaluations, to evaluate the identified environmental and social risks of projects. The General BiCRS risk evaluation contains the Minimum ESDNH risks defined in the Riverse Standard Rules.
BiCRS projects that issue avoidance RCCs must prove that they lead to at least the following GHG emission reductions compared to the baseline scenario, which are aligned with the European Union’s 2040 Climate target and described in the Riverse Standard Rules.
Biochar use in concrete: 73%
Biochar replacement of peat or horticultural products: 58%
Energy co-products: 45%
The scope of the reduction is the system boundary used in GHG quantification, described in the Baseline scenario and Project scenario sections below.
This shall be proven using the GHG reduction quantification method described below and in the relevant modules.
This eligibility criteria may be disregarded for projects that only issue removal RCCs.
General GHG quantification rules can be found in the Riverse Standard Rules.
Process-specific GHG quantification rules can be found in the accompanying BiCRS carbon capture, transformation, and carbon storage modules.
The net removals for a project shall be calculated by summing the emissions and removals of each module used by that project.
Calculations of GHG emissions for the baseline and project scenarios shall follow a robust, recognized method and good practice guidance. The overall methodological approach is a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) at the project-scale, based on .
BiCRS projects may be eligible for removal and avoidance Riverse Carbon Credits. Removal and avoidance RCCs are calculated and issued according to two completely separate accounting mechanisms, described below. This conservative approach results in double counting the project's induced emissions, and avoids the need for allocation of emissions/removals.
GHG quantifications shall be completed either for each batch (batches are defined in the relevant carbon storage modules), or for each calendar year. Carbon storage module documents may provide specific requirements.
The functional unit shall be 1 tonne of carbon storage solution (e.g. 1 tonne of biochar spread on soils, 1 tonne of biomass buried...).
BiCRS projects may result in multiple products in addition to the primary carbon storage component. Emissions from multifunctional processes shared among co-products may be allocated across the respective products. However, emissions from processes exclusive to a single product (e.g., dedicated delivery of carbon storage products) must be fully attributed to that product.
If the co-product is a nonvaluable waste, then no allocation is required and all GHG emissions are allocated to the main product.
If the co-product is valuable and eligible for avoidance RCCs, then no allocation is performed, and process emissions are counted towards both the avoidance GHG accounting and the removal GHG accounting. This is a conservative approach to separately handling removal and avoidance accounting schemes.
If the co-product is valuable and eligible for removal RCCs, then emissions may be allocated to between the co-products. It is best practice to perform allocation based on an underlying characteristic that best represents the main function of the products. Here the main function is carbon removal, so allocation shall be based on the proportion of carbon removal of the two products, in tonnes of carbon.
For example, if a project's main function is to produce biochar via pyrolysis, they may generate syngas and/or bio-oil co-products.
Syngas example
The syngas could be used to produce and export electricity to the grid and be issued avoidance RCCs. Syngas and biochar production share processes such as feedstock production and transport, feedstock shredding, and starting the pyrolyzer. Emissions from these processes would be included in both the removal RCC quantification and avoidance RCC quantification. However, emissions from biochar transport to a farm for spreading would not be accounted for in the syngas avoidance quantification, because it is not a shared process.
Bio-oil example
A baseline scenario must be included for any project that issues avoidance RCCs. The baseline scenario represents the GHG emissions from the product or activity that is avoided by the project activity, i.e. the GHG emissions that would have occurred in the absence of the project.
Baseline scenarios may be included for projects that issue only removal RCCs, for example from biomass feedstock carbon capture. The baseline scenario represents the permanent carbon removals that would have occurred anyway, without the project intervention.
Specific instructions for definition and modeling of baseline scenarios are available in the relevant module documents.
Modules include specific instructions on calculating GHG emissions and removals for the relevant processes.
Each project must use at least one module from the following categories: carbon capture, transformation and carbon storage.
V1.0
This is a Transformation Module and covers any avoided emissions from the production and export of energy co-products. This module is part of the Riverse BiCRS methodology, which allows Project Developers to choose the relevant modules for their project, and shall be used with the necessary accompanying modules.
This module is optional, and not all projects will use this module.
See more details on how modules are organized in the .
This module covers energy co-products and the resulting avoided emissions related to BiCRS projects. It is used for issuing avoidance RCCs, whereas the rest of the methodology focuses on removal RCCs. Types of energy co-products may include but are not limited to:
direct combustion of syngas for heat
combustion of syngas in combined heat and power (CHP) plants for heat and electricity
combustion of syngas to generate steam for electricity
bio-oil use as biofuel
heat for district heating or industrial use
Note that only energy co-products that are exported from the project site and used elsewhere are included in this module and eligible for avoidance RCCs.
Energy that is used internally by the project (e.g. recirculated heat from pyrolysis) is not considered. The benefits of this are already included within the project LCA by counting a zero-impact heat source.
The eligibility criteria requirements specific to this module are detailed in the sections below. Other eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the accompanying modules and methodologies:
Project Developers shall prove that the project does not contribute to substantial environmental and social harms.
Project Developers shall prove that they follow all European, national, and local environmental regulations related to pollution from energy combustion (e.g. syngas, bio-oil...).
The Project Developer, the Riverse Certification team, or the VVB may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.
Project Developers shall justify the selection of an avoided baseline energy source by demonstrating that their energy co-products is an appropriate, realistic and efficient substitute. This may be done using, for example,
direct measurements of the co-product's characteristics
contractual agreements specifying the required standards for the energy co-product or
reliable secondary/literature data detailing well-documented, consistent properties of the co-product.
The energy co-product may replace a specific energy source if it is known (e.g. natural gas) or a mix of energy sources (e.g. grid electricity, or average national heat sources). If the energy source is not specifically known, the replaced energy source shall be conservatively chosen.
The amount substituted shall be calculated based on the energy content of both the project's energy co-product and the baseline avoided energy product.
The GHG reduction quantification instructions from all other modules used by the project must be used in conjunction with the present module in order to obtain full life-cycle GHG reduction quantifications.
The additional quantification steps required in this module only relate to the baseline emissions from the avoided energy source. No additional project emissions are accounted for here, since the project's full life-cycle GHG emissions are already reported and quantified in other modules.
Monitoring and quantification may be done per Production Batch, or per calendar year. Verification shall be done annually by summing the GHG reduction quantifications for each production batch produced in the calendar year.
The required primary data for GHG reduction calculations from projects are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of primary data needed from projects and their source for initial project certification and validation. Asterisks (*) indicate which data are required to be updated annually during verification (see Monitoring Plan section).
If the project undergoes ex-ante validation, estimations and calculations may be accepted instead of measured primary data. These shall be replaced by measured primary data upon verification. Any estimates and calculations should be justified with:
process engineering documents
technical specifications for machinery
measured data from previous projects or from the scientific literature
statistics or databases
Note that conservative estimates and calculations shall always be made to avoid overestimating provisional credits.
The project scenario is the sum of induced GHG emissions from all other processes in other modules that are related to the generation of the energy co-product.
These processes may be shared with the carbon storage solution (e.g. transport of biomass to the transformation site), but for the purpose of issuing avoidance RCCs, these emissions shall be fully allocated to the energy co-product.
Any processes that take place after the carbon storage solution and energy co-product are generated, and that are not shared between them (e.g. transport of biochar to the agricultural field, permanent carbon storage), shall be excluded from the project scenario for energy co-products.
All life cycle emissions from the avoided energy source shall be accounted for in the baseline scenario. This includes raw material extraction, processing, upgrading, distribution, and if relevant, combustion.
Uncertainty may come from project data, but this is estimated to be negligible, since it is required to come from a direct measurement.
There is low uncertainty from the baseline scenario selection, where the specific type of energy replaced may not be known, in which case the replaced energy source shall be conservatively chosen.
The uncertainty at the module level is estimated to be low. This translates to an expected discount factor of at least 3% for projects that have significant GHG impacts from avoided energy products.
Monitoring Plans for this module shall include, but are not limited to, tracking of the following information for each Production Batch and/or each calendar year:
Amount and type of energy product avoided by the project's energy co-product.
The Project Developer is the party responsible for adhering to the Monitoring Plan.
The table below presents a non-exhaustive selection of Ecoinvent activities that may be used in the GHG reduction calculations for this module. Additional activities may be used for any project, if the following selection does not cover all relevant activities.
Table A1 List of ecoinvent 3.10 processes used in the GHG reduction quantification model, all processes are from the cutoff database
The bio-oil could be used for carbon removal and be issued removal RCCs. If the total carbon storage from bio-oil is 400 tonnes COeq and from biochar is 600 tonnes COeq, then 40% of the GHGs from shared processes would be allocated to bio-oil, and 60% would be allocated to biochar.
represents the net removals from the project during the verification period, in tonnes of COeq.
represents the project's GHG removals from the storage module(s) used by the project.
represents any baseline GHG removals from the capture module(s), representing permanent storage that would have occurred in the absence of the project.
represents the project's GHG emissions from the capture module(s) used by the project.
represents the project's GHG emissions from the transformation module(s) used by the project.
represents the project's GHG emissions from the storage module(s) used by the project.
represents the induced GHG emissions from the project during the verification period, in tonnes of COeq. It does not account for any carbon removals in the storage modules.
, and were described in Equation 1.
represents the GHG emissions from the baseline scenario during the verification period, in tonnes of COeq.
, and represent GHG emissions from any baseline scenario created in the respective modules.
represents the avoided GHG emissions from the project scenario, in tonnes of COeq.
was calculated in Equation 3.
was calculated in Equation 4.
Download the template here
The version 3.10 (hereafter referred to as ecoinvent) shall be the main source of emission factors unless otherwise specified. Ecoinvent is preferred because it is traceable, reliable, and well-recognized. The ecoinvent processes selected are detailed in .
If the available emission factors do not accurately represent the project, a different emission factor may be submitted by the Project Developer, and approved by the Riverse Certification team and the VVB. Any emission factor must meet the data requirements outlined in the , and come from traceable, transparent, unbiased, and reputable sources.
The rules outlined at the methodology-level in the shall be applied for allocating GHG emissions between co-products.
See the co-product allocation section in the for more details.
represents the total emissions from the project scenario assigned to the energy co-product
represents the net emissions from the
represents the emissions from that are shared between the energy co-product and the carbon storage solution
represent the emissions from onsite that are shared between the energy co-product and the carbon storage solution, and/or used for only the processing of the energy co-product
represents the emissions from the onsite that are shared between the energy co-product and the carbon storage solution
Project Developers shall follow the in the Riverse Standard Rules and the for this module.
represents the total emissions from the baseline scenario
represents the amount of energy avoided in the baseline scenario, in units that correspond to the units of the chosen emission factor (see below)
represents the emission factor for the type of energy avoided in the baseline scenario, taken from ecoinvent. See Appendix 1 for the ecoinvent process options.
See general instructions for uncertainty assessment in the . The outcome of the assessment shall be used to determine the percent of RCCs to eliminate with the .
Amount and type of energy product replaced*
kg, liter, MJ, MWh
Invoices, bills, contracts
grid electricity
market for electricity, low voltage, country specific
diesel fuel material
market for diesel, low-sulfur
market for diesel
diesel burning
diesel, burned in agricultural machinery
diesel, burned in diesel-electric generating set, 18.5kW
natural gas burning
natural gas, burned in gas turbine
heat, from steam
market for heat, from steam, in chemical industry
heat, from municipal incineration
heat, from municipal waste incineration to generic market for heat district or industrial, other than natural gas
heat, from biomethane burning
market for heat, central or small-scale, biomethane
heat, from straw burning in a furnace
heat production, straw, at furnace 300kW
heat, from natural gas
market for heat, district or industrial, natural gas
market for heat, central or small-scale, natural gas
Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score of each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The VVB and Riverse’s Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.
All risks with a high or very high risk score are subject to a Risk Mitigation Plan, which outlines how Project Developers will mitigate, monitor, report, and if necessary, compensate for any environmental and/or social harms.
Additional proof may be required for certain high risk environmental and social problems.
The Project Developer, the Riverse Certification team, or the VVB may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.
Note that the life-cycle GHG reduction calculations account for the climate change impacts of most environmental risks. Nonetheless, Project Developers shall transparently describe any identified GHG emission risks in the risk evaluation template.
All risk assessments must also address the Minimum ESDNH risks defined in the Riverse Standard Rules.
The baseline scenario structure remains valid for the entire crediting period but may be significantly revised earlier if:
The Project Developer notifies Riverse of a substantial change in project operations or baseline conditions, and/or
The methodology is revised, affecting the baseline scenario.
The specific values within the baseline scenario will be updated annually, using project data to accurately reflect the equivalent of the project’s annual operations.
Module name
Energy co-products
Module category
Transformation
Methodology name
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS)
Version
1.0
Methodology ID
RIV-BICRS-T-ECP-V1
Release date
December 4th, 2024
Status
In use
V1.0
Module name
Transport
Module category
Transformation
Methodology name
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS)
Version
1.0
Methodology ID
RIV-BICRS-T-TPRT-V1.0
Release date
December 4th, 2024
Status
In use
This is a Transformation Module and covers the upstream and downstream transportation throughout the project lifecycle. This module is part of the Riverse BiCRS methodology, which allows Project Developers to choose the relevant modules for their project, and shall be used with the necessary accompanying modules.
See more details on how modules are organized in the BiCRS home page.
This module covers transportation steps throughout the project life cycle and over several modes of transportation.
Transportation steps covered include but are not necessarily limited to feedstock transportation to the processing site and product transportation to the permanent storage site.
Modes of transportation currently include road and sea transport. Other modes will be included in future versions of this module and may be proposed by Project Developers on a case-by-case basis.
There are no eligibility criteria requirements specific to this module. Eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the accompanying modules and methodologies:
The GHG reduction quantification instructions from all other modules used by the project must be used in conjunction with the present module in order to obtain full life-cycle GHG reduction quantifications.
This module covers the life cycle GHG emissions from all transportation of feedstock and transportation of carbon storage solutions by road and sea.
Two main life cycle stages are considered:
Energy use emissions
Embodied emissions
There are three approaches for modeling energy use emissions:
Fuel-amount approach: based on the type and amounts of fuel used for each . This approach is more precise but the required data are more difficult to obtain.
Fuel-efficiency approach: based on the fuel efficiency (e.g. liters diesel/km) of transport units and type of fuel used for each , plus the distance traveled, to calculate the amount of fuel used.
Distance-based approach: based on the mass of goods transported, distance traveled, and generic transportation emission factors for shipping by road or water.
The distance-based approach relies on more assumptions compared to the other two approach, and these assumptions are always conservative. To avoid the application of such conservative assumptions, it is in the project’s best interest to provide directly measured fuel amounts, or if that data is unavailable, fuel efficiency. While obtaining this data is more challenging than simply recording distances and load weights, it allows for more accurate and less conservative calculations.
The required primary data from projects are presented in Table 1 and vary depending on the approach chosen (fuel or distance-based).
Data shall be reported from Project Developers for each and then converted to the abovementioned functional unit upon annual verification.
Table 1 Summary of primary data needed from projects and their source. One asterisk (*) indicates which data are required to be updated annually during verification (see Monitoring Plan section). Two asterisks (**) indicate which data are optional, where a conservative default choice will be applied.
Fuel quantity consumed per transport segment*
Kg or kWh
Measurements from the transport unit (e.g. vehicle flow sensors)
Measurements from tracking systems
Values reported by on-board transport unit diagnostic systems (OBD)
Purchase receipts of fuel plus local fuel cost per unit
Fuel type* and geography**
Data from tracking systems
Fuel purchase receipts, showing the fuel type and location of purchase.
Photographic evidence
Number of trips per transport segment*
Unit
Number of trips each transport segment is repeated during the reporting period (e.g. 10 trips from A to B and 8 trips from C to D)
Transport unit category**
Trucks:
Light (<7.5t)
Medium (7.5t-32t)
Heavy (>32t)
Ships:
ferry (short distance sea transport)
container ship
bulk carrier for dry goods
tanker for
Transport unit documents
Transport unit photo (showing the car license plate)
Transport unit certificates or other official documents containing the transport unit weight with maximum load capacity (proven with the parameter "weight of the loaded and unloaded vehicle")
Next step after transport segment **
Description
Detail of the next step after completing a transport segment (e.g. whether the truck returns to the original location empty, carries goods for another client on the return trip, or will be involved in a subsequent transport segment).
Fuel consumption efficiency*
kg/km or kWh/km
Telematics Data
OBD Data: Real-time vehicle diagnostics.
Reports from fleet management tools.
Fuel type* and geography**
Data from tracking systems
Fuel purchase receipts, showing the fuel type and location of purchase.
Photographic evidence
Number of trips per transport segment*
Unit
Number of trips each transport segment is repeated during the reporting period (e.g. 10 trips from A to B and 8 trips from C to D)
Transport unit category**
Trucks:
Light (<7.5t)
Medium (7.5t-32t)
Heavy (>32t)
Ships:
ferry (short distance sea transport)
container ship
bulk carrier for dry goods
tanker for
Transport unit documents
Transport unit photo (showing the car license plate)
Transport unit certificates or other official documents containing the transport unit weight with maximum load capacity
Next step after transport segment **
Description
Detail of the next step after completing a transport segment (e.g. whether the truck returns to the original location empty, carries goods for another client on the return trip, or will be involved in a subsequent transport segment).
Distance traveled per transport segment*
km
Documenting transport unit odometer readings at the start and end of a trip, containing at least reading year
Records of traveled distances from tracking systems
Mapping of the traveled route online with common platforms such as Google Maps, including start and end locations of the trip per segment
Weight of transported material per segment*
tonnes
Difference between loaded and unloaded vehicle weight
Bills of lading or delivery notes with weight details
Official reports from quality control or inspection services documenting the weight
Transport unit category**
Trucks:
Light (<7.5t)
Medium (7.5t-32t)
Heavy (>32t)
Ships:
ferry (short distance sea transport)
container ship
bulk carrier for dry goods
tanker for
Transport unit documents
Transport unit photo (showing the car license plate)
Transport unit certificates or other official documents containing the transport unit weight with maximum load capacity
Next step after transport segment **
Description
Detail of the next step after completing a transport segment (e.g. whether the truck returns to the original location empty, carries goods for another client on the return trip, or will be involved in a subsequent transport segment).
Return trip and subsequent transport segments
Note that providing data on the transport unit's next trip after the transport segment is optional (see Table 1).
Loaded Return Trips: If the transport unit is loaded for its subsequent transport segment (e.g., returning to point A or proceeding to a new point C), the emissions from these following transport segments may be excluded from the project's GHG emissions calculations. In such cases, the emissions are attributed to the client responsible for the goods transported during the subsequent trip.
Empty Return Trips: If the transport unit is empty for its subsequent transport segment, the emissions from that segment must be included in the project's GHG emissions calculations. Project Developers have the option to provide the actual fuel consumption data for the empty trip. If this data is unavailable, it will be assumed that the fuel consumption matches that of the initial trip. This assumption is conservative, as an empty vehicle typically exhibits improved fuel efficiency.
Unknown Next Transport Step: If Project Developers cannot verify the transport unit's next step after the project’s transport segment, it shall be assumed that the vehicle returns empty to point A. In this case, the emissions from the empty return trip are included in the project’s transport segment calculations.
Distance-Based Approach: When using the distance-based approach, an empty return trip is always modeled. To provide more specific details on the return trip, Project Developers must use either Approach 1: Fuel Amount or Approach 2: Fuel Efficiency.
The version 3.10 (hereafter referred to as ecoinvent) shall be the main source of emission factors unless otherwise specified. Ecoinvent is preferred because it is traceable, reliable, and well-recognized. The ecoinvent processes selected are detailed in the Appendix 1.
Secondary data is used for the fuel combustion emission factor and is presented in Table 2 and 3 below.
After analyzing the impacts of four different truck categories, the emissions for medium truck transport are averaged across two truck sizes: 7.5-16 tons and 16-32 tons.
If proof about the following transport segment (e.g. B back to A, or B onwards to C) cannot be provided, it is assumed that the transport unit returns empty with the same GHG emissions as the initial transport segment.
In the Distance-based approach, transport unit emissions from ecoinvent are used, where the emission factor includes emissions from an empty return trip (i.e. a load factor of 0%). The average load factors for the outbound journey assumed in the emission factor are detailed in Table 2 for truck transport and Table 3 for ship transport.
Embodied emissions from road transport include upstream emissions from truck manufacturing, road construction, and ongoing maintenance. For ship transport, embodied emissions cover at least the emissions associated with the ship itself, its maintenance, and the port facilities.
Table 2 Summary of outbound journey average load factor per truck category. Calculated based on ecoinvent assumptions.
Light
28
Medium
30
Heavy
89
Table 3 Summary of outbound journey average load factor per ship category. Calculated based on ecoinvent assumptions.
Ferry
50
Container ship
70
Bulk carrier for dry goods
53
Tanker for
54
The three approaches to model energy use emissions from transport are detailed below.
This approach accounts for emissions from:
upstream energy production and processing
direct GHG emissions from combustion (if fuel is the energy source rather than electricity)
Emissions for upstream energy production and processing shall be taken from ecoinvent. Options of energy types are presented in Appendix 1.
If an electric vehicle charging station is directly connected to a renewable energy source (e.g., solar), emission factors for renewable energy production may be taken from ecoinvent, as detailed in Appendix 1. Otherwise, emission factors based on the regional grid will be applied.
The shall be taken from Table 4. Project Developers may suggest emission factors for other fuel types not included here if they:
are based on reputable, transparent sources
consider at least CO, N,O and CH, emissions
are geographically accurate for the project's context
are approved by the VVB and the Riverse Certification team.
Project Developers may declare a mix of fuels used (e.g. mostly diesel with a fraction of bioethanol). Default country-specific values shall be used for the ratio of diesel to biofuel (see Appendix 2), unless Project Developers provide proof of a different ratio.
Table 4 Direct GHG emissions from combustion for several fuel types, relevant for a European context. The first three columns represent emissions in kilograms of gaseous pollutants per kilogram of fuel combusted. The final column presents the total emission factor for fuel combustion, expressed as kg COeq, after converting NO and CH emissions using their respective Global Warming Potentials (GWPs).
Diesel - 100% mineral
3.16
0.00001167
0.000148
3.20
Biodiesel
NA
-
-
0.19
Bioethanol
NA
-
-
0.0114
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO)
3.11
0.0000473
0.000148
3.15
The amount of energy used can be calculated by Project Developers using the distance traveled, and the energy efficiency (e.g. fuel consumption efficiency) of the vehicle. Then, the description and equations from the Energy Amount Approach section apply.
When details about the total energy consumption or vehicle energy efficiency are unavailable, GHG emissions from transport shall be modeled using:
default ecoinvent emission factors,
the weight of the product i transported through the segment s, in tonnes, and
the distance traveled.
Embodied transport emissions include GHG emissions from production and maintenance of major materials used in transport, such as trucks, ships and roads. These need to be added separately if the Energy amount approach or Energy efficiency approach are used to calculate energy use emissions. Emission factors from ecoinvent are used, and Project Developers shall choose between the following truck/ship categories:
For road transport, Project Developers shall select one of the following truck category sizes:
Light category: includes trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of less than 7.5 tonnes. In the ecoinvent database, this category encompasses lorry size classes of 3.5-7.5 tonnes
Medium category: includes trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of more than 7.5 tonnes and less than 32 tonnes. In the ecoinvent database, this category encompasses lorry size classes of 7.5-16 tonnes and 16-32 tonnes. The average values from these two truck sizes are used.
Heavy category: includes trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of more than 32 tonnes. In the ecoinvent database, this category encompasses lorry size class >32t.
For sea transport, Project Developers shall select one of the following ship categories.
Ferry: typically used on short to medium distances.
Container ship: large, ocean-going vessel used to transport cargo in standardized containers, known as TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units).
Bulk carrier for dry goods: specifically designed to transport unpackaged bulk cargo, such as grains, coal, ores, cement, and other dry commodities
Tanker for liquid goods other than petroleum and liquefied natural gas: designed to transport bulk liquid cargoes other than petroleum and liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Truck, ship and road production and maintenance have significant GHG emissions over their entire lifespan. However, for the purpose of issuing carbon credits, these emissions must be distributed proportionally across the specific transport segment under review ("amortized"), rather than being counted entirely upfront.
This amortization is done on the basis of the amount of travel done in the segment, compared to the total expected amount of travel for the lifetime of the transport unit. The general approach is described below.
For example, it can be extrapolated from Ecoinvent that Truck 1 has total lifetime embodied emissions from production and maintenance amounting to 20 tCOeq, along with an estimated total lifetime fuel consumption of 30,000 liters of diesel (note that actual values may vary).
If the project reports that Truck 1 consumed 300 liters of diesel during the reporting period, the truck's total emissions would be proportionally allocated to the project based on the ratio of fuel consumed during the reporting period to its total lifetime fuel consumption. The calculation would be as follows:
Fuel Consumed in Project ÷ Total Lifetime Fuel Consumption = 300 liters ÷ 30,000 liters = 10% of lifetime use
Thus, the project is assigned 10% of Truck 1’s embodied emissions for that reporting period. This equates to:
10% * 20 tCOeq = 0.2 tCOeq
This allocation method ensures that emissions from Truck 1’s production and maintenance are appropriately amortized across its lifetime use.
In practice, this is implemented by taking an ecoinvent transport emission factor (in kgCOeq/tonne*km), isolating the embodied emissions, and multiplying by the fuel efficiency (in kg or kWh per tonne*km) to obtain an embodied emission factor in terms of kgCOeq/kg or kWh of energy.
The calculations for total project transport emissions are as follows:
Energy amount approach and Energy efficiency approach:
Distance based approach:
is already calculated in Equation 5.
See general instructions for uncertainty assessment in the Riverse Standard Rules. The outcome of the assessment shall be used to determine the percent of RCCs to eliminate with the .
The uncertainty of assumptions presented in the Assumptions section are assessed below:
Averaging truck sizes: this has low uncertainty since analyses showed that the emission profiles for the two medium truck sizes in ecoinvent were similar.
Empty returns: this has high uncertainty but the most conservative approach is taken in the quantifications.
Using the default ecoinvent load factor: this has high uncertainty, because in ecoinvent, it is assumed that all vehicles are not full. This load factor affects several aspects of the GHG emissions from road transport, and a project's load factor may be higher or lower.
Embodied transport emissions: this has low to moderate uncertainty as the transport unit and road maintenance is the most impactful embodied emissions processes.
The equations have no uncertainty since they are basic conversions.
Direct GHG emissions from combustion are used as secondary data and have moderate uncertainty. These values are not expected to vary significantly within the European fuel mix.
The uncertainty at the module level is estimated to be low. This translates to an expected discount factor of at least 3% for projects that have significant GHG impacts from transport.
Monitoring Plans for this module shall include, but are not limited to, tracking of the following information for each production batch:
Transport unit category used per segment
Amount of fuel per transport segment
Fuel type and fuel production geography per transport segment
Number of trips per transport segment
Transport unit category used per segment
Fuel efficiency and distance traveled per transport segment
Fuel type and fuel production geography per transport segment
Number of trips per transport segment
Truck category used per segment
Distance per transport segment
Weight of transported materials per segment
Number of trips per transport segment
The Project Developer is the party responsible for adhering to the Monitoring Plan.
The table below presents a non-exhaustive selection of ecoinvent activities that may be used in the GHG reduction calculations for this module. Additional activities may be used for any project, if the following selection does not cover all relevant activities.
Table A1 List of ecoinvent 3.10 processes used in the GHG reduction quantification model, all processes are from the cutoff database
Diesel upstream emissions
market group for diesel, low-sulfur | diesel, low-sulfur | Cutoff, U, RER
Ethanol upstream emissions
ethanol, from fermentation, to market for ethanol, vehicle grade | ethanol, from fermentation, to market for ethanol, vehicle grade | Cutoff, U, RoW
Natural gas upstream emissions
market for natural gas, high pressure | natural gas, high pressure | Cutoff, U, RoW
Heavy Fuel Oil upstream emissions
market for heavy fuel oil l market for heavy fuel oil l Cutoff, U, RoW
Grid electricity
market group for electricity, medium voltage | electricity, medium voltage | Cutoff, U, RER
Solar electricity*
market for electricity, low voltage, renewable energy products | electricity, low voltage, renewable | Cutoff, U, CH
Truck Transport - light
transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5 | transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5 | Cutoff, U, RER
Truck Transport - medium
transport, freight, lorry 7.5-16 metric ton, EURO5 | transport, freight, lorry 7.5-16 metric ton, EURO5 | Cutoff, U, RER
Truck Transport - medium
transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO5 | transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO5 | Cutoff, U, RER
Truck Transport - heavy
transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, EURO5 | transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, EURO5 | Cutoff, U, RER
Ship Transport - ferry
transport, freight, sea, ferry | transport, freight, sea, ferry | Cutoff, U, GLO
Ship Transport - container ship
transport, freight, sea, container ship | transport, freight, sea, container ship | Cutoff, U, GLO
Ship Transport - bulk carrier for dry goods
transport, freight, sea, bulk carrier for dry goods | transport, freight, sea, bulk carrier for dry goods | Cutoff, U, GLO
Ship Transport - tanker for liquid goods other than petroleum and liquefied natural gas
transport, freight, sea, tanker for liquid goods other than petroleum and liquefied natural gas | transport, freight, sea, tanker for liquid goods other than petroleum and liquefied natural gas | Cutoff, U, GLO
*If the solar plant is directly connected to the fuel station, emissions are assumed to be zero.
Table A2 National biofuel policies in Europe per country from - Diesel blend.
Europe average
5.9
Austria
6.3
Belgium
5.7
Bulgaria
6
France
9.2
Hungary
0.2
Latvia
6.5
Lithuania
6.2
Poland
5.2
Romania
6.5
Slovenia
6.9
Biofuel blends from other countries can be used if they come from reliable sources, and are approved by the Riverse Certification team and the VVB. If data for a specific European country is unavailable, the standard European biofuel percent may be used, which is conservatively estimated to be of the diesel fuel blend.
V1.0
Module name
Biomass feedstock
Module category
Carbon capture
Methodology name
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS)
Version
1.0
Methodology ID
RIV-BICRS-CC-BMF-V1.0
Release date
December 4th, 2024
Status
In use
This is a Carbon Capture Module and covers the sourcing of biomass feedstock for carbon storage projects. This module is part of the Riverse BiCRS methodology, which allows Project Developers to choose the relevant modules for their project, and shall be used with the necessary accompanying modules.
See more details on how modules are organized in the the BiCRS home page.
This module covers use of biomass feedstock for permanent carbon removal and storage. Eligible biomasses are those that:
could not have been used as main material products,
were not grown for the purpose of or bioenergy production.
For simplification, all feedstocks that meet the above requirements will be referred to hereafter as waste. Biomass feedstocks are categorized accordingly:
Forest waste from secondary forest
Natural but not primary old-growth forest, may still be managed for timber
Default if no other forest type can be proven
Forest waste from managed forest
Managed mixed-use forests that may include agroforestry, plantations or rotational logging
Must provide proof
Necessary tree removal from any forest
Damaged trees, or trees removed for planned forest management such as preventing disease spread or fires
Must provide proof
Agricultural residues with value
Residues left on soil or reapplied to soils for nutrient recycling (e.g. mulching, composting, spreading fast-decaying cellulose-based residues with decay within 5 years)
Default if prior use could not be determined
Agricultural residues with no value
Plowed into soil, burnt in the field, no substantial return of nutrients to soil
Must provide proof
Other waste or residue
To be evaluated on a case by case basis according to criteria outlined in the present document
Must provide proof
The Project Developer and entity eligible for receiving carbon finance the user of biomass feedstock who enables the permanent carbon storage. This is further specified in the corresponding carbon storage module.
Land owners or managers where biomass is cultivated or collected are not eligible Project Developers.
The eligibility criteria requirements specific to this module are detailed in the sections below. Other eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the accompanying modules and methodologies:
Project Developers shall prove that the project does not contribute to substantial environmental and social harms.
Projects must follow all national, local and European (if located in Europe) environmental regulations related to, for example, biomass harvesting, and forest management.
In addition to completing the Biomass feedstock risk assessment described below, Project Developers must prove the following elements.
Project Developers shall provide proof that the biomass feedstock is classified as waste. This can be done via any one of the following three methods:
Price: if Project Developers did not pay for the biomass, or if they were paid to handle it, the biomass can be considered waste. Acceptable proof includes invoices, receipts, or contracts.
Contextual analysis: Project Developers may submit an analysis supported by reputable sources that the biomass 1) could not be used as main material products, and 2) was not grown for the purpose of .
Positive list of wastes: if the biomass is included in the following list, it can be considered waste. Acceptable proof includes invoices, receipts, contracts, or photographic evidence and is required for validation:
sawmill residues
sawdust
shavings
bark
forestry tops and branches
wildfire management residues
straw
husks
corn cobs
wood from horticulture (trimmings or whole plants)
nut shells
bagasse
sugar beet pulp
Project Developers shall evaluate the most likely alternative use/s of the biomass in order to assess environmental risks, leakage risks, and to calculate replacement emissions (if applicable). The evaluation shall be transparent and conservative.
The alternative use shall address questions such as:
was the biomass used for a product or service, that now needs to be replaced?
was the biomass going to store carbon anyway (in the biomass itself and/or in the soil)?
Proof shall be provided and may include signed statements from the biomass provider, historical records from the biomass provider, regional statistics or reputable reporting.
A short list of likely alternative uses may be provided for descriptive purposes, but for the purpose of further analysis, one single alternative use shall be proposed.
Biomass feedstock originating from forests shall provide at least one of the following forestry sustainability certificates (or similar, with a sufficient justification):
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)
PEFC (Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification)
RSB (Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials)
SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative)
SBP (Sustainable Biomass Program)
These certifications are used to prove:
Legal and transparent chain of custody
Proper forest regeneration
Safeguarding biodiversity and soil health
Historically stable or increasing forest carbon stocks
Sound socio-environmental practices in forestry operations
Project Developers shall fill in the Biomass feedstock risk evaluation, to evaluate the identified environmental and social risks of projects. The identified risks include:
Disruption of soil health when collecting and exporting organic matter
Presence of heavy metals, toxins or other chemical pollutants in the biomass
Spread of diseases or invasive species
Cultivation of feedstock
Deforestation from use of forestry products as feedstock
Distant transport of feedstock inputs (>100 km)
Biomass feedstock sourcing must not contribute to activity shifting leakage.
The requirement that biomass feedstock must be classified as waste prevents activity shifting leakage. Consequently, the evidence provided in the "Environmental and Social Do No Harm" section shall also be applied here to verify that the feedstock is waste.
Several other types of leakage risks are already covered by other components of this module:
Displacement of soil carbon storage: a small amount of soil carbon storage is assumed and modeled in the Baseline Scenario where relevant, effectively deducted from the project's carbon storage.
Upstream and downstream emissions: considered in the life-cycle based GHG quantifications in companion modules.
The GHG reduction quantification instructions from all other modules used by the project must be used in conjunction with the present module in order to obtain full life-cycle GHG reduction quantifications.
The required data from all projects using biomass feedstocks are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of primary data needed from projects and their source for initial project certification and validation. Asterisks (*) indicate which data are required to be updated annually during verification (see Monitoring Plan section).
Amount of biomass used*
Tonnes of fresh matter
Primary: Internal tracking documents, invoices, contracts
Carbon content of biomass
% w/w, fraction, kg/tonne
Primary or secondary: Laboratory chemical analyses, or local/national agriculture government agencies
Major assumptions in this module include:
The permanent carbon sequestration rate in the baseline scenario is 0.5%.
Because the only biomass types allowed are waste, they are assigned no environmental impacts from their production/cultivation stage. Impacts from following stages, such as harvest, transport, and processing, shall be accounted for in the Processing and energy use module.
This section is only required if the feedstock's alternative use was to be left on the soil or reapplied to soils for nutrient recycling. Specifically this includes but is not limited to:
mulching
composting
spreading fast-decaying cellulose-based residues (e.g. decay within 5 years)
The Baseline Scenario shall include permanent carbon storage that would have occurred anyway in the absence of the project.
Although most biomass carbon would be released before the CDR project's permanence horizon, a small fraction is stabilized permanently as soil carbon. This portion is accounted for in the Baseline Scenario and deducted from the project's carbon removal capacity.
The uncertainty around biomass carbon being 1) naturally incorporated into the soil and 2) converted to a stable carbon form is high, influenced by factors such as climate, soil type, soil health, and land use, making it hard to estimate for individual projects. Thus, it's assumed that 0.5% of the carbon in the biomass feedstock will be permanently stored in soils.
See general instructions for uncertainty assessment in the Riverse Standard Rules. The outcome of the assessment shall be used to determine the percent of RCCs to eliminate with the .
For projects that include baseline permanent carbon storage, the assumption that 0.5% of carbon is permanently sequestered is has moderate uncertainty, but the total net project removals is not sensitive to this assumption. Therefore, this translates to an expected discount factor of at least 3% for projects that include baseline permanent carbon storage.
Monitoring Plans for this module shall include, but are not limited to, tracking of the following information for each reporting period:
Mass, type and source of all biomass feedstocks collected by the project.
Sustainable forestry certification (if applicable)
The Project Developer is the party responsible for adhering to the Monitoring Plan.
Depending on the project type, chemical analyses may be performed on the biomass feedstock or the final carbon storage solution (e.g. biochar). The accompanying carbon storage module shall specify at which stage chemical analyses should be performed. In all cases, carbon content of biomass feedstock must be provided, although secondary sources may be acceptable (see Data sources).
If chemical analyses of feedstock are required, Project Developers shall follow the instructions in the Sampling Requirements page to ensure a random and representative sampling procedure.
Chemical analyses shall be defined by the carbon storage module and may include but are not limited to:
Organic carbon content
Determining amount of carbon removed and carbon removal efficiency
Total carbon content
Determining amount of carbon removed and carbon removal efficiency
C:N ratio
Stability of biomass
Moisture content
Mass conversions
V2.0
Module name
Biochar application to soils
Module category
Carbon storage
Methodology name
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS)
Version
2.0
Methodology ID
RIV-BICRS-CS-BCSOIL-V1.0
Release date
December 4th, 2024
Status
In use
This is a Carbon Storage Module and covers the biochar application to soils. This module is part of the Riverse BiCRS methodology, which allows Project Developers to choose the relevant modules for their project, and shall be used with the necessary accompanying modules.
See more details on how modules are organized in the BiCRS home page.
This module covers industrial biochar projects that meet all of the following criteria:
Biochar may be applied directly to soils or incorporated into soil-related products, such as soil additives, horticultural substrates, potting soils, fertilizer mixes, or compost.
Projects may be designed to prioritize bio-oil or bioenergy production, where biochar is the co-product. Such projects may still be eligible for removal Riverse Carbon Credits under this module, if they meet all criteria outlined herein.
This module also covers any potential avoided horticultural products from the use of biochar.
This module issues removal RCCs on the basis of biochar use/delivery, i.e. application to soils and permanent storage, not on the basis of biochar production.
The Project Developer and entity eligible for receiving carbon finance may be either:
the operator of the biochar production site, or
land owners or managers who purchase biochar and apply it to their soil.
Pyrolyzer and gasification equipment manufacturers are not eligible Project Developers.
Measurements and reporting are performed for production batches, and credit issuance is done at the reporting period scale (by default, annually). A production batch is the biochar produced under the same conditions regarding production temperature and feedstock mix. It is assumed that all biochar from the same production batch has similar characteristics (i.e. , moisture content…).
Specifically, the definition of a production batch follows the definition, where pyrolysis temperature and biomass feedstock composition must not change by more than 20%.
For example, if the declared pyrolysis temperature is 600 °C, temporary fluctuations between 480 °C and 720 °C are acceptable, because they are within 20% of 600 °C.
If a mixture of 50% tree clippings and 50% nut shells is pyrolyzed, the proportions can vary between 40% and 60% (±10% of the original 50% for both inputs)
A production batch has a maximum validity of 365 days, after which biochar shall be considered part of a different production batch even if conditions are unchanged.
Information about production batches may be monitored continuously by Project Developers by uploading claim information to the Riverse MRV platform. All claims from one calendar year are audited together annually by a third party VVB for verification and issuance of credits. See the Continuous issuance section of the Riverse Procedures Manual for more details.
The eligibility criteria requirements specific to this module are detailed in the sections below. Other eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the accompanying modules and methodologies:
Projects issuing removal RCCs from biochar application to soil may claim one of two different permanence horizons, depending on their GHG reduction quantification method: a permanence horizon of 100 years or 1000 years.
Permanence is ensured by measuring one of the following characteristics of biochar that are known indicators of carbon stability:
100 year pathway: Hydrogen and organic carbon content (). must be less than 0.7 to be considered eligible for 100-year permanent removals.
1000 year pathway: Random reflectance. The fraction of the biochar that has a random reflectance of 2% or higher can be considered inertinite, which is an extremely stable, permanent storage of mineral carbon.
The distinction between the two permanence horizons is supplementary, qualitative information that does not affect the inherent attributes of the removal RCC.
These indicators are suitable proof that a substantial fraction of the carbon present in biochar is permanently stable. The specific amount of permanently stored carbon is determined using the models and equations detailed in the GHG reduction quantification section.
These indicators shall be monitored for each production batch according to the Riverse Sampling Requirements.
Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Biochar application to soils risk evaluation to evaluate the risk of carbon storage reversal, based on social, economic, natural, and delivery risks.
See the BiCRS methodology No double counting section for general requirements on this topic. Since both biochar producers and users are eligible for removal RCCs under this methodology, additional details are provided here.
If only one party intends to issue carbon credits, this must be proven through signed agreements, minimizing the risk of double counting.
For example, if only the biochar producer seeks to issue carbon credits, they must obtain a signed agreement from the farmer whose land biochar will be spread on, stating that the farmer will not also try to issue carbon credits for their use of biochar.
If both the biochar producer and the farmer intend to issue carbon credits, they must agree on how to divide the annual biochar production for credit issuance. The credited biochar amount must be tracked and reported separately, governed by agreements outlining which party receives credits.
For example, they might decide that the farmer will issue credits for the biochar produced from January through April (Production Batch #1), while the producer will issue credits for biochar produced from May through December (Production Batch #2).
Project Developers shall prove that their project provides at least 2 co-benefits from the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework (and no more than 4).
Common co-benefits of biochar application to soil, and their sources of proof, are detailed in Table 1. Project Developers may suggest and prove other co-benefits not mentioned here.
SDG 13 on Climate Action by default is not considered a co-benefit here, since it is implicitly accounted for in the issuance of carbon credits. If the project delivers climate benefits that are not accounted for in the GHG reduction quantifications, then they may be considered as co-benefits.
Table 1 Summary of common co-benefits provided by biochar application to soils projects. Co-benefits are organized under the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) framework.
SDG 12.2 - Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
The project’s will be measured by the , according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's methodology. The indicator is expected to be 100% circularity for all biochar projects, since they use biomass feedstock and do not landfill or incinerate their product.
Type of feedstocks used, verification of end use of biochar
15.1 Ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services
Biochar application to agricultural soils can therefore reducing the amount of land, pesticides, fertilizer, and other environmentally impactful resources needed to grow food
Proof of biochar use in agriculture as opposed to other applications: contract, invoices, receipts of sale of biochar to farmers.
If Project Developers can prove that their biochar product replaces a specific and known amount of a specific product, (e.g. a known fraction of a horticultural substrate mix), then the product may be considered as replaced and avoided. The Project Developer shall justify the amount of material actually replaced by biochar, and may not simply use a 1:1 mass replacement ratio. A non-exhaustive list of possible replaced products include:
Horticultural peat/peat moss
Lime
Perlite and vermiculite
Synthetic mineral fertilizers (only when biochar is used as an ingredient in fertilizer mixes, not when it is directly applied to soils)
Project Developers must prove that:
the biochar is an appropriate and realistic substitute for the avoided product, and
that the user of the biochar actually uses less of the horticultural product than they did previously
In other words, it is not sufficient to prove that biochar could technically substitute products, because there is high uncertainty in which products biochar would actually substitute. It must be shown using operations tracking or invoices from the biochar user that they actually use less of the replaced product, thanks to the addition of biochar.
By default, it shall be assumed that biochar application to soils does not replace any measurable, verifiable product.
If only removal RCCs are issued, then this eligibility criteria is not applicable.
Note that avoidance from energy co-products is covered in a a separate module.
Project Developers shall prove that the project does not contribute to substantial environmental and social harms.
Projects must follow all national, local, and European (if located in Europe) environmental regulations related to, for example, pyrolysis, gasification, waste feedstock management, and biochar spreading on soils.
Feedstock sustainability risks shall be taken from the Biomass feedstock module.
Biochar applied to soils must be below the pollutant concentration thresholds outlined in Table 2, defined by the (for EBC-Agro). This shall be measured for each production batch.
Table 2 The thresholds for pollutant concentrations allowed in biochar, as detailed in the .
Substance
Limit amount (g/tonne dry matter)
Pb
120
Cd
1.5
Cu
100
Ni
50
Hg
1
Zn
400
Cr
90
As
13
8 EFSA PAH
1
benzo[e]pyrene
benzo[j]fluoranthene
<1
Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Biochar application to soils risk evaluation, to evaluate the identified environmental and social risks of projects. The identified risks include:
Heavy metal or other pollutants in biochar applied to agricultural soils
The GHG reduction quantification instructions from all other modules used by the project must be used in conjunction with the present module in order to obtain full life-cycle GHG reduction quantifications.
The system boundary of this quantification section starts at the arrival of biochar at the site of permanent incorporation/application (i.e. field for spreading, mixing into potting soil...) and ends at the biochar end of life, after accounting for decay and re-emission in its end use application.
Quantification shall be done at a minimum for each biochar production batch, and may be done more frequently for Continuous issuance. Verification shall be done annually by summing the GHG reduction quantifications for each production batch produced in the calendar year.
GHG emissions covered in this module include:
Permanent carbon storage modeling
Production of avoided baseline scenario materials
The required primary data for GHG reduction calculations from projects are presented in Table 2. These data shall be provided for each production batch and made publicly available.
Table 2 Summary of primary data needed from projects and their source for initial project certification and validation. Asterisks (*) indicate which data are required to be updated annually during verification (see Monitoring Plan section).
Amount of biochar produced*
Tonnes of fresh matter
Internal tracking documents, invoices, contracts
Ratio
Laboratory chemical analyses
Organic carbon content
Percent
Laboratory chemical analyses
Percent
Laboratory chemical analyses
Amount and type of avoided horticultural product (optional)
kg, tonnes, m3
Operations tracking and invoices from the product user
Amount of biochar produced*
Tonnes of fresh matter
Internal tracking documents, invoices, contracts
Organic carbon content
Percent
Laboratory chemical analyses
Percent
Laboratory chemical analyses
Fraction
Laboratory chemical analyses
percent
Laboratory chemical analyses
Amount and type of avoided horticultural product (optional)
kg, tonne, m3
Operations tracking and invoices from the product user
The version 3.10 (hereafter referred to as ecoinvent) shall be the main source of emission factors unless otherwise specified. Ecoinvent is preferred because it is traceable, reliable, and well-recognized. The ecoinvent processes selected are detailed in Appendix 1.
No other secondary data sources are used in this module.
The rules outlined at the methodology-level in the BiCRS methodology document shall be applied for allocating GHG emissions between co-products.
By default, biochar application to soils does not replace any product.
The fraction of biochar with an below 2% does not contribute to any permanent carbon storage. This fraction, classified as semi-inertinite rather than inertinite, likely plays a role in long-term carbon storage. However, due to limited research on its quantification, it is conservatively excluded from this analysis.
All biochar from the same production batch has the same characteristics (e.g. M_{\text{%}}, , ).
The baseline scenario for the purpose of Removal vs Avoidance RCCs issuance is detailed below.
For removal RCCs, there is no baseline from this module because it is assumed that there is no significant share of the project activity already occurring in business-as-usual. Therefore, the baseline for removal credits is zero and is omitted from calculations.
According to the Riverse Procedures Manual, this assumption shall be re-assessed at a minimum every 3 years during the mandatory methodology revision process, and any changes to this assumption would be applied to existing projects.
Note that baseline scenario carbon sequestration may be included for the project from the biomass feedstock module.
For avoidance RCCs, a baseline scenario shall only be considered if the project meets the Substitution criteria and is eligible to claim avoidance RCCs.
By default, it shall be assumed that biochar application to soils does not replace any measurable, verifiable product.
If Project Developers can prove that their biochar product replaces a specific and known amount of a specific product, then the product may be considered as replaced and avoided.
Examples of ecoinvent processes for these products are presented in Appendix 1.
Note that avoidance from energy co-products is covered in a separate module.
The equations for calculating avoidance are presented in the BiCRS methodology document and shall be applied here.
Project Developers must choose between one of two approaches to quantify the total carbon removals from their biochar product, as described in the Permanence section. A single approach must be used consistently throughout each reporting period, though a different approach may be chosen for subsequent reporting periods.
Modeling 100-year removals using bulk measurements of , or
Estimating 1000-year removals using random reflectance measurements as proxies for inertinite.
This approach is based on research from , and the . It is rooted in soil ecology and soil biochemistry disciplines. The permanent fraction of biochar carbon remaining after 100 years ( ) is modeled using the average soil temperature of 15°C.
For verification, Project Developers shall provide primary project data in the form of laboratory measurements for and M_{\text{%}} following the Sampling requirements.
This approach is based on research from , and is rooted in organic petrology and geochemistry disciplines. This approach is built upon research showing that fractions of inertinite in biochar samples are:
and will not re-release their carbon for at least 1000 years.
represented by the fraction of the sample with a Random Reflectance () of .
For verification, Project Developers shall provide primary project data in the form of laboratory measurements for distribution and M_{\text{%}} per production batch following the Sampling requirements.
distribution shall be calculated on at least 500 measurements, yielding a distribution diagram similar to the examples in Figure 1.
The fraction of the distribution with an above 2% shall be assumed to equal the fraction of the biochar carbon that is stored permanently for 1000 years. The fraction
The fraction of the distribution with an below 2% shall represent the fraction of biochar carbon that is not permanently stored, and for which no removal RCCs are issued.
Example 1: This biochar sample has heterogenous quality and a wide distribution of measurements. The biochar sample has a mean of 2.12, and 72% of the measurements are above the 2% inertinite threshold. Therefore, this biochar sample has an of 0.72, and 72% of the organic carbon in the sample will be converted to COeq and considered as 1000-year carbon removals. The remaining 28% of carbon is assumed to decompose within the 1000-year permanence horizon, and is not considered for any removal RCCs.
Example 2: This biochar sample has rather homogenous quality and a narrow distribution of measurements. The biochar sample has a mean of 2.32, and 95% of the measurements are above the 2% inertinite threshold. Therefore, this biochar sample has an of 0.95, and 95% of the organic carbon in the sample will be converted to COeq and considered as 1000-year carbon removals. The remaining 5% of carbon is assumed to decompose within the 1000-year permanence horizon, and is not considered for any removal RCCs.
Riverse is actively monitoring ongoing research and seeking expert advice on the potential development of a third approach that uses measurements as proxies for inertinite content. For example, if the value is less than 0.2, it could be interpreted as indicating that 95% of the biochar is inertinite. While this simplification has been suggested by experts and holds promise, it is currently considered insufficiently rigorous due to a lack of supporting evidence and clear guidance.
See general instructions for uncertainty assessment in the Riverse Standard Rules. The outcome of the assessment shall be used to determine the percent of RCCs to eliminate with the .
The three assumptions presented in the Assumptions section have moderate uncertainty, but the most conservative approach is taken in the quantifications.
The baseline scenario selection (if applicable) has low uncertainty, because the specific circumstances, amount and type of baseline material must be proven by the Project Developer.
The equations and models have low to moderate uncertainty. The model for 100-year permanence from has moderate uncertainty because it is a model fitted to experimental data, which always introduces variability. The equations for 1000-year permanence from have low uncertainty because they are basic conversion equations.
The assumption that biochar characteristics are the same throughout the production batch is low, thanks to the strict definition of a production batch ensuring low-variability, and the exhaustive sampling requirements ensuring a representative sample.
The uncertainty at the module level is estimated to be low. This translates to an expected discount factor of at least 3% for projects using this module.
The following indicators shall be measured for each production batch:
Carbon content (organic and/or total)
moisture content
random reflectance (only if applying for 1000-year permanence)
Measurements shall be performed by laboratories with at least one quality assurance accreditation, such as:
ISO/IEC 17025
CEN/TS 17225-1
ISO 10694
Unaccredited laboratories from academic settings shall be evaluated on a case by case basis by the VVB and the Riverse Certification team.
The sampling procedure detailed in sections below and summarized in Figure 1 is the recommended approach for representative sampling. However, Project Developers may implement their own approach if it is detailed in the PDD and in Sampling Records; ensures one representative sample per production batch; addresses samples and composite samples amount and frequency; and ensures homogenization. The VVB and the Riverse Certification team must validate the rigor and representativeness of the proposed sampling approach.
The recommended approach sampling requirements are based on the following sources:
One representative sample per Production Batch shall be created and sent for laboratory testing. This sample ensures that any within-batch variability is captured in the measurements.
Table 1 details the number of composite samples that should be taken per Production Batch to obtain one representative sample, based on the .
The representative sample size should be be 24 liters * the n number of composite samples per Production Batch detailed in Table 1.
Table 1
≤ 3 000
4
3 001 – 10 000
8
10 001 – 20 000
12
20 001 – 40 000
16
40 001 – 60 000
20
60 001 – 80 000
24
80 001 – 100 000
28
The should be followed for taking composite samples. Those requirements are summarized below.
The first sample must be taken within 7 days of the start of the Production Batch.
To prepare one sample, 8 sub-samples of 3 liters each are taken at intervals of at least one hour directly at the discharge of the freshly produced material. This shall be repeated for three consecutive days.
The 24 samples are combined to form one composite sample.
The first sample must be taken within 7 days of the start of the Production Batch.
Samples may be taken from a well-mixed pile of biochar produced within the last 7 days.
The amount of biochar used for one sample shall be equivalent to at least one day's production.
24 sub-samples of 3 liters each shall be taken from different spots in the pile.
The 24 subsamples are combined to form one composite sample.
The representative sample shall be homogenized by the Project Developer or by the laboratory that performs testing. The biochar shall be ground to a size of <3 mm.
The ground sample is mixed by shoveling the pile three times from one pile to another.
A sub-sample of 1.5 liters shall be taken from 15 spots in the mixed pile.
The 15 sub-samples are re-combined, and then mixed by shoveling the pile three times from one pile to another.
From the mixed pile of the combined sub-samples, 15 subsamples of 150 ml each should be taken at 15 different spots in the pile and combined. This combined homogenized representative cross sample is used for laboratory testing.
A one-liter retention sample shall be collected each day that biochar is produced. These samples should be combined for storage over the calendar month. Retention samples must be stored for a minimum of two years.
For each Production Batch, Project Developers shall submit a Sampling Record for verification to prove their adherence to the requirements above. Sampling Records shall include the following information for each sample taken:
Date of sampling
Amount of biochar sampled
Description of representative sampling process (either followed the recommended approach, or describe the individual approach)
Sample ID
Visual description and observation of biochar
Description of any potential anomalies
Proof of retention sampling
Photos showing the date, sample ID, and amount of biochar that is included in the present Sampling Record
Biochar projects often use carbon financing to launch new projects, and validation is done ex-ante before the project begins operations. In this case, are estimated using reasonable project data estimates. These provisional credit estimates are converted to verified issued credits upon verification using real project data. Required project data estimates are detailed below.
A project may use one quantification approach for ex-ante estimation, and use a different approach for verification.
An estimated ratio and must be provided based on
measurements from samples from pilot phase or previous operations for the same site (preferred option),
equipment manufacturer data/quotes/estimates,
scientific literature for similar project conditions, or
verified measurements from other projects under similar conditions.
If options 2-4 are used, the estimated and shall automatically be discounted by 10% for the validation-stage estimates, in order to ensure conservative estimates and avoid over-estimations.
An estimated must be provided based on the same sources described for Approach 1: 100-year removals with H/C. This estimated value shall be used for quantification.
An estimated must be provided based on the same sources described for Approach 1: 100-year removals with H/C. This estimated value must be below 0.4 to use the 1000-year approach.
Project Developers must prove that they plan to perform pyrolysis at a temperature of at least 500°C.
Since distributions cannot be reliably estimated before production, a default value of 0.8 shall be assumed for all projects for the purpose of ex-ante validation estimates, given that they meet the above requirements. The real value shall be used for verification and the final issuance of removal RCCs.
When validation is conducted on non-operating projects that are in the planning stage, Project Developers shall prove during validation that the biochar is reasonably expected with strong certainty to end up in its intended use (application to soil). This shall be provided by either:
Option 1: Signed agreements with the end-buyers that they intend to purchase the agreed upon quantity of biochar annually (preferable).
Option 2: If the project is in planning stages and has not yet secured a buyer, a signed agreement from the Project Developer of their intended buyer/user of biochar. Note that the delivery risk is higher for this option, so Option 1 is preferable. An increased discount factor may be applied.
Upon verification, once the project has started operating, Project Developers shall prove that biochar has been used in the intended application for each Production Batch, (e.g. incorporated into soils, added to fertilizer mixes…). This shall be done in Biochar Application Verification Reports that shall contain all of the following:
Tracking records of the purchase and/or delivery of the biochar to its end use point of use, specifying the date, amount of biochar and Production Batch ID.
GPS coordinates of all end use points with according amounts of biochar, if known to the Project Developer.
Company name and individual contact information for each buyer/user of biochar, for traceability and random checking by VVBs.
Photo diary of biochar application, including photos of for example the biochar being delivered, tags/labels with information, road signs during delivery, process of biochar spreading.
Monitoring Plans for this module shall include, but are not limited to, tracking of the following information for each Production Batch:
Description of the pyrolysis conditions (temperature and residence time) and any variability in the process
Amount of biochar produced, in tonnes of fresh biochar
Moisture content of biochar
Organic carbon content
Random reflectance ( ) mean and distribution (only for Approach 2: Estimating 1000-year removals using random reflectance)
Monitoring Plans for this module shall include, but are not limited to, tracking of the following information for each calendar year:
Number of Production Batches
Total amount of biochar produced per year, in tonnes of fresh biochar
The Project Developer is the party responsible for adhering to the Monitoring Plan.
The table below presents a non-exhaustive selection of Ecoinvent activities that may be used in the GHG reduction calculations for this module. Additional activities may be used for any project, if the following selection does not cover all relevant activities.
Table A1 List of ecoinvent 3.10 processes used in the GHG reduction quantification model, all processes are from the cutoff database
Peat moss
peat moss production, horticultural use, RoW
Perlite
expanded perlite production, CH
Lime
market for lime, RER
Nitrogen mineral fertilizer
market for inorganic nitrogen fertiliser, as N, country specific
Phosphorus mineral fertilizer
market for inorganic phosphorus fertiliser, as P2O5, country specific
Potassium mineral fertilizer
market for inorganic potassium fertiliser, as K2O, country specific
Mineral NPK fertilizer #1
market for NPK (26-15-15) fertiliser, RER
Mineral NPK fertilizer #2
market for NPK (15-15-15) fertiliser, RER
This page describes the changes in the Biochar application to soils module.
Because this module is considered the V2.0 of the Riverse BECCS and Biochar V1.0 methodology, the table below also includes changes from the Riverse BECCS and Biochar V1.0 methodology that are covered in other modules (e.g. Biomass feedstock).
Added equations for calculation GHG reductions
Increased transparency.
September 2024
V2.0
Aligned terminology with ISO 14064-2:2019
Improved consistency with the voluntary carbon market. LCA principles still apply.
September 2024
V2.0
Added risk assessment template for environmental and social do no harm
Provide more detailed and prescriptive assessment framework, clearer instructions for project developers.
September 2024
V2.0
Removed text for sections that are the same for all methodologies:
Measurability
Real
Additionality
Technology readiness level
Minimum impact
Independently verified
Repeated text from the Standard Rules.
September 2024
V2.0
Added Monitoring Plan section
Alignment with Riverse Standard Rules V6.
September 2024
V2.0
Remove Rebound Effect and Independently Validated criteria
Alignment with Riverse Standard Rules V6.
September 2024
V2.0
Added uncertainty assessment section
Alignment with Riverse Standard Rules V6.
September 2024
V2.0
Infrastructure and machinery quantification expanded and specified, simple option added
Simplification, results not sensitive to impacts
September 2024
V2.0
New Leakage requirements
More rigorous eligibility criteria, and clear requirements and instructions for Project Developers
September 2024
V2.0
Allow option for 1000 year removals, measurement of random reflectance
Updated research
September 2024
V2.0
Added verification of end use reports
Increased rigor to ensure biochar is used as claimed
September 2024
V2.0
Added precise sampling requirements
Provide Project Developers with clear expectations, ensure representative sampling
September 2024
V2.0
Allow option to monitor data and quantify GHGs per production batch
Facilitate data collection and reporting for Project Developers
September 2024
V2.0
Biomass feedstock shall only be waste and biomass cultivated from sustainable production is not allowed
Increased stringency, following best practice and scientific recommendations
September 2024
V2.0
V1.0
Module name
Processing and energy use
Module category
Transformation
Methodology name
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS)
Version
1.0
Methodology ID
RIV-BICRS-T-P&ENG-V1.0
Release date
December 4th, 2024
Status
In use
This is a Transformation Module and covers processing and energy use related to the project. This module is part of the Riverse BiCRS methodology, which allows Project Developers to choose the relevant modules for their project, and shall be used with the necessary accompanying modules.
See more details on how modules are organized in the BiCRS home page.
This module covers all processing stages and non-transport energy inputs related to BiCRS projects. It is intended to cover all eligibility criteria and GHG quantification for all processes that are not included in the other BiCRS modules: feedstock production, transport, infrastructure/machinery, and carbon storage. Specific processes vary by project, and may include but are not limited to:
storing, drying, mixing, shredding and grinding of biomass feedstock
operation of pyrolysis/gasification machinery
direct emissions from off-gas released to the atmosphere (e.g. methane)
purification, liquefication, and other post-processing of products
use of electricity, gas, heat, water, or other material inputs
waste treatment and management of non-valuable co-products
The eligibility criteria requirements specific to this module are detailed in the sections below. Other eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the accompanying modules and methodologies:
Project Developers shall prove that the project does not contribute to substantial environmental and social harms.
Projects must follow all European, national, and local environmental regulations related to, for example, syngas combustion national emission regulations.
Feedstock sustainability risks shall be taken from the Biomass feedstock module.
The only strict, disqualifying requirement in this module is that pyrolysis gases produced during the process must be either captured or cleanly burned, if the project is using pyrolysis/gasification. Waste heat and energy coproducts should be used onsite, and fossil fuel based energy should be minimized.
Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Processing and energy use risk evaluation, to evaluate the identified environmental and social risks of projects. The identified risks include:
Pests and pathogen growth from biomass feedstock storage
Leachate and runoff from biomass feedstock storage
Gaseous emissions from pyrolysis/gasification/combustion
Improper disposal of waste by-products (ash, tar, residue...) causing soil and water contamination
Inefficient use of waste heat
Worker exposure to particulate matter or other gaseous pollutants from pyrolysis
Worker exposure to dust from biomass shredding/grinding, respiratory risks
The processes covered in this module are highly dependent on the project type, so not all risks may be relevant to a given project. Project Developers may explain how a risk is not applicable to their project.
The GHG reduction quantification instructions from all other modules used by the project must be used in conjunction with the present module in order to obtain full life-cycle GHG reduction quantifications. It is a catch-all module that includes all relevant processes that are not included in other modules.
Monitoring and quantification may be done per Production Batch, or per calendar year. Verification shall be done annually by summing the GHG reduction quantifications for each production batch produced in the calendar year.
The system boundary of this quantification section includes GHG emissions from at least the following mandatory activities:
Electricity and fuel production
Fuel combustion
Direct emissions of off-gas/flue gas
Water use
Waste treatment
According to the Riverse Standard Rules, processes with the lowest contributions to impacts, which each account for less than 1% of total impacts, may be excluded from the GHG quantification. These processes shall be transparently identified and justified.
For example, if a screening simulation shows that tap water use for wetting feedstock contributes to less than 1% of project GHGs, then tap water may be excluded from the calculations.
The required primary data for GHG reduction calculations from projects are presented in Table 1. These data shall be provided for each production batch and made publicly available.
Table 1 Summary of primary data needed from projects and their source for initial project certification and validation. Asterisks (*) indicate which data are required to be updated annually during verification (see Monitoring Plan section).
Pyrolysis/gasification target temperature, for each production batch*
°C
Operations records (only for projects that perform pyrolysis/gasification)
Pyrolysis/gasification residence time, for each production batch*
minutes
Operations records (only for projects that perform pyrolysis/gasification)
Detailed process diagram with included/excluded processes
Flow chart
Internal process documents
Type of input/emission*
Text description
Internal process documents
Amount of input/emission*
Meter readings, bills, internal tracking documents, invoices, contracts, gas analyzers or sensors on pyrolysis equipment, calculated using conversions from other primary project data
The version 3.10 (hereafter referred to as ecoinvent) shall be the main source of emission factors unless otherwise specified. Ecoinvent is preferred because it is traceable, reliable, and well-recognized. The ecoinvent processes selected are detailed in Appendix.
If the available emission factors do not accurately represent the project, a different emission factor may be submitted by the Project Developer, and approved by the Riverse Certification team and the VVB. Any emission factor must meet the data requirements outlined in the Riverse Standard Rules, and come from traceable, transparent, unbiased, and reputable sources.
No other secondary data sources are used in this module.
If the project undergoes ex-ante validation, estimations and calculations may be accepted instead of measured primary data. These shall be replaced by measured primary data upon verification. Any estimates and calculations should be justified with:
process engineering documents
technical specifications for machinery
measured data from previous projects or from the scientific literature
statistics or databases
Note that conservative estimates and calculations shall always be made to avoid overestimating provisional credits.
Because energy is expected to be the most important input in this module, additional details are provided regarding how to model energy.
Projects may only use renewable electricity emission factors for their energy consumption if:
the energy production is directly linked to the project site, and can prove that there is a physical link, or
the project holds renewable energy certificates (REC) (e.g. guarantee of origin, GO) plus an energy contract or purchase agreement for the concerned energy. In other words, the project can prove the coupled use of the energy and its corresponding REC.
Use of only a REC is not sufficient and shall be counted as grid electricity.
Electricity grid emission factors shall be taken for the national grid (at the maximum granularity), and if possible, regional mixes shall be used.
GHG emissions from fuel use shall include both the upstream extraction and processing of fuel, plus the direct emissions from combustion.
The rules outlined at the methodology-level in the BiCRS methodology document shall be applied for allocating GHG emissions between co-products.
Based on the project's detailed process diagram, activities and inputs shall be selected for inclusion in the module and listed.
Project Developers shall choose a type of input/emission used among the options in Appendix 1. If the relevant input is not listed, it may be added/considered on a case by case basis, and approved by the Riverse Certification team and the VVB.
For each input, Project Developers shall provide the amount used and units per Production Batch and/or per calendar year.
The table below provides an example of the type of data Project Developers may provide to use this module.
Grid electricity
8
GWh
All electricity used onsite annually
Electricity bills
Diesel
5
liter
Shredding machine. 1 liter diesel per Production Batch, x5 Production Batches per year, calculated using machine fuel efficiency and number of hours used
Technical specifications (liter/hour), record of number of hours used
Methane emissions
20
kg
Emissions calculated from incomplete combustion of syngas
Equipment technical specifications (e.g. 99% efficiency guaranteed), records of amount of syngas produced
Bottom ash waste
50
kg
Management of ash residue from 1 year, landfilled
Invoice from waste management company
See general instructions for uncertainty assessment in the Riverse Standard Rules. The outcome of the assessment shall be used to determine the percent of RCCs to eliminate with the .
Uncertainty may come from project data, but this is estimated to be negligible, since it is required to come from a direct measurement.
This translates to no minimum expected discount factor based on this module.
Monitoring Plans for this module shall include, but are not limited to, tracking of the following information for each Production Batch and/or each calendar year:
Amount and type of any input/emission that makes up more than 30% of project life-cycle GHG emissions
Amount and type of any input/emission that makes up between 10-30% of project life-cycle GHG emissions and is expected to vary by more than 30% between Production Batches
The Project Developer is the party responsible for adhering to the Monitoring Plan.
The table below presents a non-exhaustive selection of Ecoinvent activities that may be used in the GHG reduction calculations for this module. Additional activities may be used for any project, if the following selection does not cover all relevant activities.
Table A1 List of ecoinvent 3.10 processes used in the GHG reduction quantification model, all processes are from the cutoff database
grid electricity
market for electricity, low voltage
market for electricity, medium voltage
onsite solar electricity
electricity production, photovoltaic, 570kWp open ground installation, multi-Si
diesel fuel material
market for diesel, low-sulfur
market for diesel
diesel burning
diesel, burned in agricultural machinery
diesel, burned in diesel-electric generating set, 18.5kW
natural gas burning
natural gas, burned in gas turbine
heat, from steam
market for heat, from steam, in chemical industry
heat, from munipal incineration
heat, from municipal waste incineration to generic market for heat district or industrial, other than natural gas
heat, from biomethane burning
market for heat, central or small-scale, biomethane
heat, from straw burning in a furnace
heat production, straw, at furnace 300kW
heat, from natural gas
market for heat, district or industrial, natural gas
market for heat, central or small-scale, natural gas
water
market for tap water
market for water, decarbonised
market for water, deionised
non-hazardous landfill
market for process-specific burdens, slag landfill
market for process-specific burdens, sanitary landfill
market for process-specific burdens, inert material landfill
hazardous waste treatment
market for hazardous waste, for incineration
market for hazardous waste, for underground deposit
V1.0
Module name
Infrastructure and machinery
Module category
Transformation
Methodology name
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS)
Version
1.0
Methodology ID
RIV-BICRS-T-INFRA-V1.0
Release date
December 4th, 2024
Status
In use
This is a Transformation Module and covers the cradle to grave impacts of major infrastructure and machinery. This module is part of the Riverse BiCRS methodology, which allows Project Developers to choose the relevant modules for their project, and shall be used with the necessary accompanying modules.
See more details on how modules are organized in the BiCRS home page.
This module covers the embodied emissions from production and end of life of major infrastructure and machinery used for BiCRS projects. Specific infrastructure and machinery vary by project, and may include but are not limited to:
pyrolysis/gasification reactors*
feedstock shredders, grinders, dryers and conveyors*
building structure*
concrete foundations*
cables used in large quantities
silos and storage facilities
gas cleaning systems
onsite pipelines
Items marked with an asterisk are required to be considered in the GHG reduction quantification if they weigh more than 1 tonne.
Materials that shall be prioritized are those that are expected to contribute the most to GHG emissions, due to large quantities used and the emission intensity of the material. This includes, for example, steel and its alloys, concrete, virgin aluminum, and copper. Other materials that may be considered, but are lower priority because they contribute fewer GHG emissions, include glass, ceramics, various types of plastics and recycled aluminum. Materials not mentioned here may be omitted. Electronic components (e.g. wiring, circuit boards, screens...) are not included due to their small impact and difficulty in data collection.
Items with a lifetime of 1 year or more
Items that have been created/are used as a direct result of the project operations
Pre-existing infrastructure that would have been used by another company/project, if the present project did not exist (e.g. office buildings, foundations...).
Onsite machinery and equipment
Machinery used in the product life cycle but located outside the direct control of the project (e.g. storage silos at the biomass feedstock collection stage)
There are no eligibility criteria requirements specific to this module. Eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the accompanying modules and methodologies:
The GHG reduction quantification instructions from all other modules used by the project must be used in conjunction with the present module in order to obtain full life-cycle GHG reduction quantifications.
The system boundary of this quantification section includes the raw material extraction, processing, and end of life waste treatment of major infrastructure and machinery used in the project life cycle (excluding transport machinery, which are covered in the Transportation module).
Quantification shall be done once during validation, and GHG emissions shall be allocated temporally to each verification year that credits are issued for (see more details in the Temporal Allocation section). This module may be considered during monitoring and subsequent verifications only if new infrastructure/machinery are declared by the Project Developer for that year.
The scope of the module, and which infrastructure and machinery items to include, are described in the Scope of the module section.
No Baseline scenario shall be considered by default for this module.
Project Developers may choose between two modeling options:
Full approach: This includes detailed measuring, reporting and modeling of important infrastructure and machinery used. Data collection is more difficult, but fewer conservative assumptions/discounts are made.
Simplified approach: For projects where infrastructure and machinery are not large contributors to GHG emissions (see details below), a proxy facility with infrastructure and machinery may be used. Data collection is simple and uncertainty is high, so efforts are taken to ensure this approach overestimates GHG emissions rather than underestimates.
The required primary data for GHG reduction calculations from projects are presented in Table 1. These data shall be provided once during validation, and made publicly available.
Table 1 Summary of primary data needed from projects and their source for initial project certification and validation. Two asterisks (**) indicate which data are optional, where a conservative default choice will be applied
Item type
Selection
NA
Material type
Selection
Technical specifications, bill of materials, invoices, building design documents
Material amount
Same as above
Item lifetime**
years
Same as above
List of items that were excluded
Selection
Description of the system and transparent justification
Data shall be reported in terms of items (e.g. pyrolysis reactor) and the materials that make up each item (e.g. stainless steel, ceramics).
Material amounts may be directly provided in the sources, or may be calculated using basic conversions based on a primary source plus justified conversion factors (e.g. density).
Tonnes of biomass processed annually (dry matter)
tonne
Contract with biomass supplier, operations tracking, invoices
The version 3.10 (hereafter referred to as ecoinvent) shall be the main source of emission factors unless otherwise specified. Ecoinvent is preferred because it is traceable, reliable, and well-recognized. The ecoinvent processes selected are detailed in Appendix.
If the available emission factors do not accurately represent the project, a different emission factor may be submitted by the Project Developer, and approved by the Riverse Certification team and the VVB. Any emission factor must meet the data requirements outlined in the Riverse Standard Rules, and come from traceable, transparent, unbiased, and reputable sources.
No other secondary data sources are used in this module.
If the project undergoes ex-ante validation, estimations and calculations may be accepted instead of measured primary data. These shall be replaced by measured primary data upon verification. Any estimates and calculations should be justified with:
process engineering documents
technical specifications for machinery
measured data from previous projects or from the scientific literature
statistics or databases
Note that conservative estimates and calculations shall always be made to avoid overestimating provisional credits.
Infrastructure and machinery have significant GHG emissions over their entire lifespan. However, for the purpose of issuing carbon credits, these emissions must be distributed proportionally across the specific verification period under review ("amortized"), rather than being counted entirely upfront.
For example, if a pyrolysis machine has an expected lifetime of 7 years, and its embodied life cycle GHG emissions are 35 t COeq, then its emissions amortized to 1 year are t COeq/year. For the annual verification and issuance of the project, 5 t COeq would be counted towards the project emissions for the pyrolysis machinery.
The lifetimes provided in Table 2 shall be used by default for various types of items. Note that they are very conservative estimates for lifetimes in order to avoid over-crediting, and due to the high uncertainty around the durability of such items. Project Developers may provide proof to justify a different lifetime, subject to the approval of the VVB and the Riverse Certification team.
Table 2 Assumed expected lifetimes are presented for various types of machinery and infrastructure.
Pyrolysis reactor
7
Feedstock shredder, grinder, dryer
7
Gas cooling, cleaning, and energy recovery
10
Silos, hoppers
10
Buildings, sheds
20
Aboveground pipelines
20
Underground pipelines
40
Building foundations
50
The rules outlined at the methodology-level in the BiCRS methodology document shall be applied for allocating GHG emissions between co-products.
The estimated lifetimes presented in Table 2 are assumptions.
The end of life waste treatment methods are assumed, because it is impossible to know what waste treatment methods will be common many years in the future.
Emission factors for items and materials are grouped together under the most common representative type available in ecoinvent. For example, hundreds of ecoinvent processes are available that describe various production, processing, and waste treatment of steel, but only a selection of steel-related processes are made available in the Riverse platform (see options in Appendix 1).
First all total GHG emissions from infrastructure and machinery are quantified.
Then they are amortized to one year based on the expected lifetime of each item.
Finally they can be normalized to the functional unit of 1 tonne of carbon storage solution, based on the amount of carbon storage solution generated during the verification year.
They can optionally be normalized to the Production Batch, or to the tonne of carbon storage solution in a given Production Batch, for informational purposes only. RCCs are ultimately verified and issued based on the annual processes.
Project Developers shall select items/materials used among the options in Appendix 1. If the relevant input is not listed, it may be added/considered on a case by case basis, and approved by the Riverse Certification team and the VVB.
For each material, Project Developers shall provide the item it corresponds to (e.g. steel for pyrolysis reactor, steel for silo...) and the amount used in the item. Items may be composed of multiple materials, or only one main material. Default lifetimes provided in Table 2 shall be applied, unless Project Developers justify a different lifetime.
Although it is more precise to accurately measure and report all machinery and infrastructure, this represents a large data collection burden for a life cycle stage that is not expected to be a major contributor to GHG emissions in many BiCRS projects.
Therefore, Project Developers may choose between a full, detailed model of their infrastructure and machinery using primary data, or a simplified approach using a proxy biomass gasification factory with approximately 400-500 t COeq over the lifetime (see Appendix 1 for the ecoinvent processes details).
If the simplified approach shows that Infrastructure and machinery contribute to more than 5% of the project's induced emissions (not net emissions, including removals), then this life cycle stage is deemed too important for the project and the simplified approach may not be used. The project must use the Full approach.
The proxy represents a global average biomass gasification factory, so it is adapted by replacing heat and electricity inputs with country-specific sources. It includes the production and waste treatment of buildings, facilities, dryer, gasifier, communication equipment, and gas treatment and conditioning equipment.
Note that due to high uncertainty in the simplified approach, conservative assumptions will be made that likely lead lead to overestimating project emissions from the infrastructure and machinery life cycle stage. For example, although the ecoinvent process represents a facility with a 50 year lifetime, a 15 year lifetime shall be assumed here (see Temporal allocation section). Project Developers shall provide the amount of biomass processes annually, which is used to adjust the default facility to the project size.
For example, if the default facility has
a life cycle impact of 400 t COeq and
a rate of 10,000 tonnes of dry biomass processed annually
then a project that processes 5,000 tonnes of biomass is assumed to be half the size and have half the impacts of the default option.
Therefore, the project would have 200 t COeq from infrastructure and machinery.
See general instructions for uncertainty assessment in the Riverse Standard Rules. The outcome of the assessment shall be used to determine the percent of RCCs to eliminate with the .
Uncertainty may come from project data, but this is estimated to be negligible, since it is required to come from a primary source.
The uncertainty of the assumptions in this module is assessed below:
There is high uncertainty in default expected lifetimes for infrastructure and machinery items, and results are very sensitive to this parameter. Conservative values within a reasonable range were taken.
There is high uncertainty in the future waste treatment methods, but results are not very sensitive to this parameter.
There is moderate uncertainty in assuming that the selection of ecoinvent processes for a given material/item are representative of all its uses.
It is expected that the overall project emissions will typically not be very sensitive to the infrastructure and machinery module emissions and uncertainty, since they usually make up a small fraction of the total emissions. The uncertainty for projects from this module is therefore estimated to be low. This translates to an expected discount factor of at least 3% for projects that have significant GHG impacts from infrastructure and machinery.
No default monitoring plan is required for this module because data are expected to be reported and calculated only once per crediting period.
The general Project Monitoring and Verification requirements from the Riverse Procedures Manual still apply, where Project Developers shall declare any major changes during monitoring, such as if a major piece of machinery was replaced, or a new piece of infrastructure was installed. GHG reduction quantification shall then be performed as described in the previous section, using primary data described in Table 1.
The Project Developer is the party responsible for adhering to the Monitoring Plan.
The table below presents a non-exhaustive selection of Ecoinvent activities that may be used in the GHG reduction calculations for this module. Additional activities may be used for any project, if the following selection does not cover all relevant activities.
Table A1 List of ecoinvent 3.10 processes used in the GHG reduction quantification model, all processes are from the cutoff database
Steel alloy, stainless steel production
market for steel, chromium steel 18/8, hot rolled, GLO
Unalloyed steel production
market for steel, low-alloyed, hot rolled, GLO
Reinforcing steel (building)
market for reinforcing steel, GLO
All steel end of life
market for waste reinforcement steel, RoW
Concrete production
market for concrete, normal strength, RoW
Concrete end of life
market for waste concrete, not reinforced, Europe without Switzerland
Copper production
market for copper, cathode, GLO
Aluminum production
market for aluminium, wrought alloy, GLO
Default facility for simplified approach
synthetic gas factory construction, RoW
heat, district or industrial, other than natural gas, Europe without Switzerland
market group for electricity, medium voltage, European Network of Transmission Systems Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E)
Category (see )
Category (see )
All risk assessments must also address the defined in the Riverse Standard Rules.
Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score of each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The VVB and Riverse’s Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.
All risks with a high or very high risk score are subject to a , which outlines how Project Developers will mitigate, monitor, report, and if necessary, compensate for any environmental and/or social harms.
Additional proof may be required for certain high risk environmental and social problems.
The Project Developer, the Riverse Certification team, or the VVB may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.
Note that the life-cycle GHG reduction calculations account for the climate change impacts of most environmental risks. Nonetheless, Project Developers shall transparently describe any identified GHG emission risks in the risk evaluation template.
Download the template here
Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score of each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The VVB and Riverse’s Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.
All risks with a high or very high risk score are subject to a , which outlines how Project Developers will mitigate, monitor, report, and if necessary, compensate for any environmental and/or social harms.
Additional proof may be required for certain high risk environmental and social problems.
The Project Developer, the Riverse Certification team, or the VVB may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.
Note that the life-cycle GHG reduction calculations account for the climate change impacts of most environmental risks. Nonetheless, Project Developers shall transparently describe any identified GHG emission risks in the risk evaluation template.
All risk assessments must also address the defined in the Riverse Standard Rules.
Biochar *
Biochar moisture content () *
Average random reflectance
Fraction of distribution measurements above 2%
Biochar moisture content ()*
Download the template here
All risk assessments must also address the defined in the Riverse Standard Rules.
Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score of each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The VVB and Riverse’s Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.
All risks with a high or very high risk score are subject to a , which outlines how Project Developers will mitigate, monitor, report, and if necessary, compensate for any environmental and/or social harms.
Additional proof may be required for certain high risk environmental and social problems.
The Project Developer, the Riverse Certification team, or the VVB may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.
Note that the life-cycle GHG reduction calculations account for the climate change impacts of most environmental risks. Nonetheless, Project Developers shall transparently describe any identified GHG emission risks in the risk evaluation template.
kg, liter, kWh, MWh, GWh, m
Download the template here
Items with a lifetime of less than 1 year are considered consumables, and are considered in the module.
kg, tonne, m
Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score to each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The Riverse Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.
The Project Developer, Riverse Certification team, or the third-party auditor may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.
Each reversal risk with a high or very risk score is subject to:
risk mitigation plan, developed by the Project Developer, that details the long-term strategies and investments for preventing, monitoring, reporting and compensating carbon removal reversal, or
additional contributions to the buffer pool, at a rate of 3% of verified removal Riverse Carbon Credits for each high or very high risk
Feedstock
Processing
Heat biomass to at least 350°C during production.
Biochar Quality and Use
Apply biochar to agricultural, forest, or urban soils, ensuring permanent sequestration of its organic carbon content.
V1.0
This is a Carbon Storage Module and covers Marine sub-sediment burial. This module is part of the Riverse BiCRS methodology, which allows Project Developers to choose the relevant modules for their project, and shall be used with the necessary accompanying modules.
See more details on how modules are organized in the .
This module covers marine sub-sediment burial projects that inject waste and residual biomass feedstock inputs directly into the layer of . Projects shall meet all of the following criteria:
Demonstrate capability to perform MRV as agreed upon in the validated project documentation
Demonstrate a net-negative project carbon footprint based on initial LCA estimates of induced emissions and initial CDR estimates based on modeling
Projects that sink biomass to the seafloor but do not bury and embed it into marine sub-sediments are not eligible.
The cand entity eligible for receiving carbon finance is the operator performing storage at the sub-sediment burial site. Biomass producers and sub-sediment burial machinery manufacturers are not eligible Project Developers.
Storage must be done in conditions.
Storage must be done in existing accessible . Projects that drill, dredge or build wells for the sole purpose of accessing sub-sediments or creating sub-sediment conditions are not eligible, due to the associated environmental risks.
Feedstock mix is buried in the predefined storage points, and monitored at the storage site and storage batch level.
Visual proof of each burial event and site closure is required, via imagery documented in the PDD and subsequent Monitoring Reports, to confirm that the site is well-sealed by surrounding sediments or other surface enhancements (e.g. rocks/rubble, clay caps) and confirm closure.
PDs may choose to either use:
50/50 issuance: undergo a verification audit by a VVB at the first measurement step and issue the first 50% of removal RCCs on the Riverse registry. Repeat the audit after the following step to issue the remaining 50%, or
One-time issuance: skip the first measurement and verification step, and wait to issue 100% of removal RCCs at the second measurement stage described below.
Measurements and reporting are performed for storage batches. Verification and credit issuance is done at the reporting period scale (by default, annually), grouping results for all storage batches concerned during that reporting period. The organization of a project into storage batches, sites and points is described below, and depicted in Figure 1.
Grain size: the majority grain size at the burial sediment depth must be either defined as either clay (0.002-0.05 mm) or sand (0.05-2 mm) for all storage points within a storage site, indicated by >50% of sediment grain size. Defined by recommendations of .
Water depth at storage point: At water depths 1-20 m, water depths must be within 0.5 m. At water depths 20-200 m, water depths must be within 5 m.
Sub-sediment depth of storage: At sub-sediment depths 2-3 m, storage depths must be within 0.5 m. At sub-sediment depths >3 m, storage depths must be within 1 m.
Ongoing burial into the sub-sediment shall last no longer than , to standardize sampling timescales. If burial continues after 31 days, it shall be considered a separate storage batch.
One project may work with different storage batches simultaneously. Each storage batch shall be monitored and reported separately within the same Monitoring Report. Storage batch information shall be monitored and reported at least once per calendar year.
A feedstock mixture is defined as one biomass feedstock or uniform mixtures of feedstocks. One feedstock mixture may be used across several storage batches, but any time the feedstock mixture of one storage batch changes, a new storage batch shall be started.
The feedstock mixture composition may vary by no more than 20% to be considered the same homogeneous feedstock mixture, where the composition is made of feedstocks of a specific type from a specific supplier.
For example, if a feedstock mixture is composed of 50% sawdust and 50% shredded straw, the proportions can vary between 40% and 60% (±10% of the original 50% for both inputs).
If a feedstock mixture is composed of 50% sawdust from Supplier A and and 50% from Supplier B, the proportions can vary between 40% and 60% (±10% of the original 50% for both inputs).
Storage points must meet the criteria outlined in Table 1 to be eligible. The criteria are set to ensure storage points are suitable for permanent carbon storage and have low reversal risks.
All criteria shall be outlined in the Site Characterization Report, prepared before any burial events occur and submitted with the PDD for the validation audit. In addition, the Site Characterization Report shall provide GPS coordinates of each planned storage point, and a GIS-generated map showing each storage point and the delineation of the associated storage site.
Additional storage sites and points may be proposed after project operations begin and credits are issued, provided no burial occurs at the new sites or points before they are validated. To add new storage sites and points, the Project Developer must update the Site Characterization Report with the required details. A VVB shall audit the report to ensure compliance with requirements in Table 1. Once approved, the new sites and points must adhere to the monitoring plan requirements.
Data sources characterizing storage points must be, in the following order of preference, 1) primary data from a pilot survey e.g. site surveys, in situ measurements and measurements on samples collected at the project site, delivered by the Project Developer, or 2) secondary data from the specific area concerned (e.g. published peer-reviewed literature or database measurements) or 3) secondary data from an area that is proven to be sufficiently representative and similar to the project area in the appropriate factors that relate to permanent storage.
Table 1 The required measurements and information for a storage site that must be presented in the Site Characterization Report, before any burial occurs, to justify that the storage site is appropriate for permanent CDR via marine sub-sediment burial.
Sampling occurs at two stages of the project: sampling of the feedstock mixture before burial to establish organic carbon buried, and sampling the feedstock mixture after burial to check for any reversals (i.e. carbon degradation or diffusion. At both stages of sampling, laboratory testing shall provide the following measurements of the feedstock mixture:
% organic content of the solid biomass
% moisture content of the feedstock mixture
density of the feedstock mixture
Two representative samples of the feedstock mixture shall be prepared and sent for laboratory testing per storage batch: one at the beginning (day one) and one at the end of the storage batch (day 31 or an earlier date when the storage batch is complete).
Post-burial monitoring and sampling shall occur:
at least 12 months after the burial event, and
optionally, may also be performed within 1-3 months after the burial event if the Project Developer chooses the 50/50 credit issuance approach.
Post-burial monitoring and sampling should be completed using sediment coring, to access the buried biomass, extract samples, and send them to a laboratory to measure the organic content of the solid biomass. Alternative approaches may be considered on a case by case basis, and approved by the VVB, the Riverse Certification team and, if deemed necessary by the Riverse Certification team, an expert peer reviewer.
Sampling and laboratory testing shall be done separately for each storage point. At least three sub-samples shall be taken from each storage point and mixed together to obtain one composite sample for the storage point. Samples can not be mixed from all storage points in one storage site to perform laboratory tests on a composite sample.
Project Developers shall prepare a Sampling Plan before any burial events occur, and submit it with the PDD for the validation audit. The Sampling Plan shall describe:
how representative samples will be taken of the feedstock mixture in pre-burial sampling
how to preserve moisture content of feedstock mixture while sending it to the lab
number of samples used for post-burial sampling
strategy for ensuring random/representative/unbiased sampling locations for post-burial sampling
The eligibility criteria requirements specific to this module are detailed in the sections below. Other eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the accompanying modules and methodologies:
Removal Riverse Carbon Credits (RCCs) issued from marine sub-sediment burial have a permanence horizon of 1000 years.
Project Developers may use primary measurements and secondary data to qualitatively discuss extended permanence horizons up to 100,000 years in their PDD. This is aligned with results of historical markers of undegraded terrestrial biomass recovered and . This would be supplementary information provided in the PDD, and the removal credit shall still be labeled as 1000 years.
Permanence is assessed at two points during project certification:
at ex-ante validation it is estimated using literature data and models
during verification it is demonstrated using direct measurements.
Requirements for each stage are detailed below.
At verification, it is assumed that any organic carbon still remaining in the feedstock mixture 12 months after burial will remain permanently stored over 1000 years.
For each storage batch, the organic carbon content in the buried feedstock mixture is measured via sampling at 1-3 months (optional) and 12 months (mandatory) to determine the carbon permanently stored.
If organic carbon loss measured during monitoring exceeds 1% of the initially buried carbon, degradation may be triggered. In this case, the conservative for estimating carbon loss under oxic conditions, which was used at ex-ante validation, shall still be used for verification and carbon credit issuance. This is expected to largely overestimate the actual carbon loss under anoxic conditions.
If organic carbon loss exceeds 5% of the initially buried amount, the project is considered compromised, and carbon credit issuance for the affected storage batches will be paused. The Riverse Certification team will collaborate with Project Developers to determine the cause of the unexpected loss and decide on appropriate corrective actions.
Common co-benefits of Marine sub-sediment burial, and their sources of proof, are detailed in Table 2. Project Developers may suggest and prove other co-benefits not mentioned here.
Table 2 Summary of common co-benefits provided by Marine sub-sediment burial projects. Co-benefits are organized under the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) framework.
Project Developers shall prove that the project does not contribute to substantial environmental and social harms.
Projects must follow all national, local, and European (if located in Europe) environmental regulations related to the project activities.
Project Developers must follow all relevant laws and legal requirements for reporting operations to local, federal and international governing bodies. Project Developers must follow the requirements outlined in their permit relating to the amount of tonnes injected if specified, and geographic area permitted for operations .
Permits are typically required for accessing coastal marine sediments and performing sub-sediment burial. The Project Developer must provide written authorization by either 1) the permit granting regulatory authority or 2) by the partner providing the permit demonstrating freedom to operate and perform sub-sediment burial in the geographic area defined in the PDD.
Typically, the EIA should be completed in advance of obtaining permitting for credit generation, and will be completed over the course of operations and reported to Riverse.
EIA may not be required for all permits for storage. When EIA is not required for permitting (e.g. for a research permit or permit exemption), the Project Developer shall demonstrate that a baseline environmental survey has been completed, assessing the elements listed below, and that the potential impacts have been considered to be within regulatory guidelines. This justification shall be evaluated by both the VVB and the Riverse Certification Team. Project Developers shall provide the same information as they would in a full EIA to Riverse for project validation, and cover aspects including:
Marine protected areas
Benthic habitat
Fishing grounds
Shipping lanes
Subsea infrastructure
Materials of historical significance
Baseline environmental survey and/or EIA must address how the project adheres to regulatory requirements such as limitations on sediment resuspension and habitat destruction due to seabed intervention.
The system boundary of this quantification section starts after burial of feedstock mixture and covers carbon storage through end of life after 1000 years, and accounts for potential re-emission and decay modeled for 1000+ years. Sources of GHG emissions covered in this module include only permanent carbon storage modeling. Other GHG emissions shall be taken from the accompanying modules.
There is no baseline from this module because it is assumed that there is no significant share of the project activity already occurring in business-as-usual. Therefore, the baseline for removal credits is zero and is omitted from calculations.
The required primary data for GHG reduction calculations from projects are presented in Table 3. These data shall be included in the project’s PDD and made publicly available.
Secondary data taken from the literature are used to define default values for the parameters outlined in Table 4. These values are only used for ex-ante validation models, and will be replaced by project measurements during verification.
Table 4 Values from scientific literature that may be used instead of primary data, for validation stage ex-ante carbon degradation modeling.
Carbon storage is calculated by subtracting the amount of organic carbon degraded over 1000 years from the amount of initially buried organic carbon.
Carbon burial is measured using the amount of feedstock mixture buried, and its measured organic carbon content.
If monitoring measurements at 1-3 months or at 12-months show that >1% of buried organic carbon has been degraded and/or diffused, then the conservative models used at validation shall be applied to issue RCCs. See Eq. 4.
Nevertheless, oxic-environment rate constants are applied here, which is a conservative approach because this is expected to overestimate potential degradation in the sub-sediment burial anoxic conditions. This methodology may be revised to account for new measurements of anoxic-condition rate constants.
The literature values used here are intended to conservatively overestimate carbon loss, because they are taken from experiments under oxic conditions where degradation is more likely than in the anoxic conditions required under this methodology.
The entirety of buried biomass will be securely located in the seabed, allowing point-source monitoring of organic carbon degradation via measurement of organic carbon content.
Organic carbon degradation is . 12 months is an appropriate and sufficiently long timeframe to determine how much carbon degradation (if any) will occur over 1000 years.
Biomass degradation will either begin after embedding in the sub-sediment following a logarithmic relationship (), or it will not occur at all.
The rate of organic carbon degradation under oxic conditions is greater than the rate under anoxic conditions.
Biomass degradation can be measured by tracking organic carbon content of samples of the buried feedstock mixture over time.
Storage points will not experience re-suspension or re-working such that burial biomass is exposed to the water column over 1000 years.
The site characteristics and requirements detailed in Table 1 are suitable to identify sub-sediment areas that are anoxic.
The uncertainty in this module is assessed below for each component.
The baseline scenario selection has low uncertainty: it is rather certain that the share of project technology occurring in a Business as Usual scenario is very low.
they are conservative assumptions, representing oxic conditions where carbon degradation is assumed to be higher than in the anoxic conditions required for burial under the present module, and
Low Uncertainty
Buried feedstock is securely stored in sub-sediment.
Biomass degradation can be tracked by measuring organic carbon over time.
Organic carbon degrades faster in oxic than anoxic conditions.
The site traits outlined in Table 1 are suitable for identifying anoxic sub-sediment areas.
Oxygen penetration depth can be used to estimate methane diffusion.
Moderate Uncertainty
Organic carbon degrades quickly at first, following a logarithmic trend; 12 months is a suitable measurement period.
Storage points remain undisturbed for 1000 years, preventing biomass exposure.
The uncertainty at the module level is estimated to be low. This translates to an expected discount factor of at least 3% for projects under this module.
The following information shall be provided for verification of each storage batch:
This appendix outlines the scientific foundation for sub-sediment biomass storage, summarizing key research on organic carbon degradation and preservation in marine sediments. While no studies directly replicate the conditions described in this module, relevant literature on similar processes is compiled.
Hydrogen sulfide, though toxic, is rapidly oxidized in oxygenated environments, preventing marine toxicity. Additionally, 10–20% of HS reacts with iron hydrates to form pyrite (FeS), further stabilizing organic matter (Barber et al., 2017; Baumgartner et al., 2023).
Methanogenesis, consuming 15% of CO₂ from sulfate oxidation, contributes to organic carbon degradation (Regnier et al., 2011). Over time, sediment compaction reduces porosity, slowing diffusion and promoting FeS formation. This further limits CO₂ and methane movement, allowing microbial utilization.
Long-term biomass preservation in marine sediments is driven by low OET, rapid burial, and anoxic conditions. Anoxic degradation is significantly slower than oxic processes, enhancing the stability of buried carbon. Existing research supports the feasibility of sub-sediment biomass storage as a durable carbon sequestration strategy.
ESDNH indicators may be measured by the Project Developer within the validation stage to reduce project risk, and suggested monitoring during the verification stage.
Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to benthic life, and excessive production may exceed oxidation rates, increasing ecological risk.
Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, can also impact benthic organisms if released.
Suggested monitoring plan additions to monitor environmental harms
Table 5: Summary of observation of furrowing and rippled scour depressions in literature
This page describes the changes in the Marine sub-sediment burial module.
Use waste and residual biomass as feedstock, according to the module.
Capture or cleanly burn pyrolysis gasses, as outlined in the module
Produce high-quality biochar with a molar below 0.7.
A project is defined as all burial activities that take place from one port over the project lifetime (by default a maximum of 5 years, ), and all removal that occurs as a result of that burial, plus the upstream/downstream activities associated with that burial (e.g. GHG emissions from feedstock sourcing, transport...).
See the section for more details on how a project is organized into different burial areas and burial events.
See the section for more specific requirements.
Only feedstock that also meets the requirements of the is eligible in this module. Injection of liquefied or gaseous CO into sediments is outside the scope of this module.
See the for more specific feedstock requirements.
Before or in parallel to validation with Riverse, the Project Developer shall obtain the necessary permits, and take measurements and samples, and gather secondary sources, for the and feedstock characterization, and propose a .
The Project Developer submits required documentation and undergoes an ex-ante validation audit. The project documentation is made available on the registry, expected CDR volume is estimated, and are available for pre-purchase agreements. Specific prerequisites include:
have been granted to operate at the storage site, and to monitor the site up to 12-months after storage.
The storage points are technically appropriate and can allow for permanent carbon storage. This is proven by generating the , demonstrating adherence to all requirements in the section.
Expected CDR is modeled using .
Between 1-3 months after burial, Project Developers conduct first monitoring by following the and the to measure organic carbon content in buried biomass for each storage batch. Additional storage points may be added within the validated storage sites. CDR estimates and permanence are .
Project Developers conduct the second monitoring at least 12 months after burial, following the and the , to measure organic carbon content in buried biomass for each storage batch. CDR estimates and permanence are , and verified by the VVB.
50/50 issuance: the remaining credits are issued. Any discrepancies in earlier results, for example as a result of degradation, shall be accounted for by updating CDR calculations and following the in the Riverse Procedures Manual.
Sedimentary conditions for storage points within one storage site must be within the following ranges (data requirements are outlined in the section):
Information about storage batches may be by Project Developers by uploading claim information to the Riverse MRV platform. All claims from one calendar year are audited together annually by a third party VVB for verification and issuance of credits.
Any water used in the feedstock mixture must come from within the 24 km storage batch area.
See the section for requirements on feedstock sampling.
See the section for more details.
To demonstrate that carbon in sub-sediment burial will remain permanently stable, indicators from the section must be provided at validation, in the Site Characterization Report, demonstrating compliance with the requirements.
These indicators are suitable proof that a substantial fraction of the buried carbon is permanently stable. The amount of permanently stored carbon is determined using the models and equations detailed in the section.
The actual amount of permanently stored carbon is measured as described in the , replacing the modeled amounts used during validation to issue ex-post Riverse Carbon Credits.
Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Marine sub-sediment burial to evaluate the risk of carbon storage reversal, based on social, economic, natural, and delivery risks.
Project Developers shall prove that their project provides at least 2 co-benefits from the (SDGs) framework (and no more than 4).
Feedstock sustainability risks shall be taken from the .
Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Marine sub-sediment burial to evaluate the environmental and social risks of their project.
According to the Riverse Procedures Manual, this assumption shall be re-assessed at a during the mandatory methodology revision process, and any changes to this assumption would be .
Note that baseline scenario carbon sequestration or leakage impacts may be included for the project from the .
Table 3 Summary of primary data needed from projects and their source for project validation and verification. See the section for more details on monitoring and verification requirements. Asterisks (*) indicate which data shall be updated for each storage batch.
If project incubation experiments or in situ experiments are used to provide values for and parameters, these experiments must either 1) be scientifically peer reviewed and published in academic journals, or 2) undergo independent external peer review for the specific project.
Carbon degradation is subtracted from this carbon burial. It is and .
represents the total carbon removed in the present module on marine sub-sediment burial. It is used in Eq. 1 in the section of the . It is calculated for each storage batch.
represents the tonnes of COeq in the buried feedstock mixture, calculated below in Eq. 2.
represents the tonnes of COeq in the buried feedstock mixture that are degraded, lost and re-emitted, and is calculated in Eq. 3.
represents the total volume of feedstock mixture buried in m
represents the density of feedstock mixture in tonnes/m
represents the moisture content of the feedstock mixture, on a weight basis (%w/w), so represents the dry matter content of the feedstock mixture
represents the organic carbon content in the feedstock mixture, in % mass (e.g. g organic carbon/g dry feedstock mixture). At validation, this value should be conservatively estimated.
is 44/12 = 3.67, and represents the molar masses of CO and C respectively, and is used to convert tonnes C to tonnes of COeq.
represents the potential amount of carbon lost from degradation of buried feedstock mixture, in tonnes of COeq.
represents the fraction of evolved CO from degradation of the buried feedstock mixture that diffuses upwards out of the sediment, into the overlying water column, and is eventually emitted to the atmosphere within 1000 years (as opposed to remaining trapped in the sediment, reincorporated into microbial biomass...). This is conservatively assumed to be 1 for all projects, even though site requirements minimize sediment diffusion.
represents the fraction of organic carbon originally buried that has been lost via degradation. If this is found to be >0.01 during 1-3 or 12 month monitoring (i.e. 1% of buried organic carbon has degraded), then the conservative models used at validation shall be applied to issue RCCs.
The greatest risk to carbon removal reversal is degradation of buried feedstock mixture by microbes in the sub-sediment. This is limited by the site requirements that ensure anoxic conditions preventing degradation in the first place, and by sediment conditions ensuring that if degradation occurs, any evolved CO would stay trapped in the sub-sediment. Nevertheless, the calculations conservatively assume that any CO degraded is diffused out of the sub-sediment.
Carbon degradation is conservatively modeled during validation using a (see and ), and measured during verification.
Empirical peer-reviewed research has only covered rate constants for organic matter degradation () for use in the under oxic conditions, but the projects covered under this methodology occur in anoxic conditions.
In absence of resources covering anoxic conditions, a literature review is described in using decades of research on analogous environments and describing the expected range of in anoxic environments.
During validation, carbon degradation over 1000 years shall be calculated using the following to estimate provisional carbon credit volumes. The calculations are demonstrated in below.
represents time. The equations presented can be time-integrated from 0 to 1000 years, calculating carbon degradation/storage continuously. For the purpose of issuing RCCs under this module, only results at time = 1000 years are used.
represents the fraction of organic carbon originally buried in the feedstock biomass remaining after 1000 years.
and are the fractional pools (in tonnes of organic carbon) of intermediate 1, intermediate 2, and residual, described in Table 4.
and are rate constants for each fractional pool, described in Table 4.
is described in Eq. 3.
is calculated in Eq. 2.
is described in Eq. 3.
is calculated in Eq. 2.
represents the organic carbon stored in the buried feedstock mixture at time , either a first monitoring and sampling between 1-3 months after burial, or a second monitoring and sampling at least 12 months after burial, in tonnes of COeq. See for a description of the two time periods. This is calculated in Eq. 8.
is described in Eq. 2, and is assumed to be the same at burial and at time
represents the density of feedstock mixture in tonnes/m at time
represents the moisture content of the feedstock mixture at time , on a weight basis (%w/w), so represents the dry matter content of the feedstock mixture at time
represents the organic carbon content in the feedstock mixture, in % mass (e.g. g organic carbon/g dry feedstock mixture) at time
was described in Eq. 2.
This example demonstrates the validation-stage, ex-ante carbon storage modeling for the burial of 1 tonne of COeq (=1) at a sediment depth () of 5 m, using literature values from described in Table 4.
Using equations 1-8 we obtain the the following results for , also shown in Figures 3a and 3b below for 1 and 1000 years, respectively.
= 1 t COeq
= 0.999 t COeq
= 0.9993 t COeq
= 0.9093 t COeq
In this case the estimated permanent carbon removal, over 1000 years, is 0.9093 tCOeq. Induced emissions from other modules would be calculated and subtracted from this removal estimate to determine the number of provisional credits to make available.
If, for example, upon monitoring, the Project Developer takes samples of the buried feedstock mixture and measured a = 0.9995 t COeq. This represents an of 0.05%, below the 1% threshold, so the project may issue RCCs based on the actual measured value of 0.9995 t COeq (adjusted by the induced emissions calculated in other modules).
If, for example, the Project Developer measures a = 0.985 t COeq. This represents an of 1.5%, above the 1% threshold. The measurements are not used, it is considered that degradation has been triggered, and the project will issue credits based on their validation-stage estimates (i.e. 0.9093 t COeq.).
Any organic carbon degradation leads to CO released to the water column, and eventually back to the atmosphere, via diffusive transport (see Eq. 4, = 1). This is a conservative assumption, because degraded carbon may remain trapped permanently in the sediment matrix as CO. Indeed, the site requirements are set to ensure that CO diffusion out of the sediment matrix is minimized.
Methane diffusion can be measured using oxygen penetration depth as a proxy. If O is measurable in the surface layer of marine sediments, methane is unable to diffuse out of the sediment-water interface.
See general instructions for uncertainty assessment in the . The outcome of the assessment shall be used to determine the percent of RCCs to eliminate with the .
modeling consists of basic conversions with low uncertainty.
modeling consists of the at validation, with low uncertainty given that this is a foundational and commonly accepted model in biogeochemistry. At verification, this is modeled using direct measurements of changes in organic carbon content, leading to low uncertainty.
The secondary data used for all projects under this methodology are the and constants presented in Table 4. The use of these constants has moderate uncertainty, because they are not specifically adapted to project storage sites. This uncertainty is mitigated and considered acceptable because:
constants are only used at validation for calculating ex-ante estimates of carbon removal. These are replaced by measurements and primary data for verification and RCC issuance.
Any degradation releases CO to the water, then the atmosphere, via diffusion (a conservative assumption).
Download the template
Marine sediments serve as the final carbon sink, storing 150–200 billion tons of organic carbon in their upper layers (; ; ). The biological pump transfers oceanic carbon to sediments via microbial fixation, food chain dynamics, and sinking particulate matter. Despite its inefficiency—only ~1% of sinking carbon reaches sediments, and just 0.1% is buried long-term (; )—this process significantly influences atmospheric CO₂ levels.
Biomass degrades rapidly in oxygenated sediments, but in anoxic environments, it can persist for millennia. Oxygen exposure time (OET) controls degradation: prolonged exposure breaks macromolecules into labile forms, accelerating conversion to CO₂. Reducing OET preserves biomass, as seen in bog bodies and historic wooden structures preserved in compacted, oxygen-deprived sediments (; ).
Decades of research (; ; ) indicate that organic carbon degrades slowly in anoxic sediments due to low substrate availability, microbial competition, mineral protection, and biochemical inaccessibility (; ).
Biomass preservation for over 1,000 years is common in coastal zones with high sedimentation rates and low OET. For example, rapid burial in the Bay of Bengal (30 cm/yr sedimentation) protects wood from microbial degradation, preserving organic material for millions of years (). Similarly, wood fragments up to 11,900 years old have been recovered from the Gulf of Mexico (), and entire ancient forests remain buried off the Alabama coast (; ).
Studies show organic carbon degradation slows exponentially over time, with rates up to 1,000× lower in anoxic sediments than in oxic environments (; ; ; ). This supports the assumption that degradation rates in oxic conditions () represent a worst-case scenario for anoxic sub-sediment burial.
Biomass degradation begins with extracellular enzymatic hydrolysis, where aerobic microbes break down macromolecules into small organic compounds. These are further processed via anaerobic fermentation into substrates for redox reactions. However, without sufficient OET, enzymatic hydrolysis cannot begin, preventing degradation (; ). Ligno-cellulosic biomass requires longer OET than algal biomass to initiate breakdown.
In deep sediments, sulfate reduction is the dominant degradation process, accounting for 50% of total biomass decomposition globally (Jorgensen et al., 2019). This slow, energy-limited process produces CO₂ and hydrogen sulfide (HS). CO₂ diffuses upward, where it may be fixed by microbes or released at the sediment-water interface. Worst-case CO₂ diffusion rates align with modern dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) fluxes (). CO₂ accumulates due to compaction, it can form hydrates at depths >10 m in cold marine sediments (Eccles & Pratson, 2012; Velaga et al., 2011).
To monitor environmental risk, Project Developers should understand the biogeochemical zonation of sediment depths where biomass is stored. In anoxic marine sediments, organic molecules degrade via sulfate reduction, producing hydrogen sulfide (HS), which diffuses upward and oxidizes to sulfate in oxygen-rich layers. In the absence of sulfate, methanogenesis dominates, producing methane (CH). Both processes can generate HS or CH, posing environmental risks.
To mitigate risks, HS and CHemissions at the sediment-water interface should remain below environmental thresholds. Project Developers are encouraged to measure dissolved sulfate, HS, and CHconcentrations in target sediment layers before burial and include these gases in their monitoring plans to ensure environmental safety.
In addition to reaching below the maximum oxygen penetration depth at any season, there is a required sub-sediment depth of at least 2 m depth into the sediment is required due to risk of reversal, due to maximum 2m sediment scouring during tropical zones, and infilling of previously scoured areas due to resuspension due to storms (; ), fluid-mud flows (), and erosion (, ).
On the continental shelf, seafloor sediments are eroded and reworked by bottom currents and wave action, a process known as “scouring” (). This creates linear or lobate depressions shaped by dominant environmental forces. Channel-shaped scours, or furrows, range from 10–100 meters wide and 100–1000 meters long, with coarse sand or gravel floors. Larger lobate deposits (100–500 meters wide) are often filled with mega-rippled coarse sand, forming "Rippled Scour Depressions" (). Major storms can also transport large amounts of sediment to the deep sea without leaving scours ().
Scouring and sediment resuspension pose risks to carbon storage in shelf sediments, as buried biomass must remain covered to prevent oxygen exposure. To assess this risk, we reviewed 29 studies on sediment furrows and ripple scour depressions across various depths and oceanographic settings (Figure 4, Table 5). Reported scour depths, including those from extreme events (e.g., Hurricanes Katrina, Ivan, Sandy), inform our recommendation of a >2-meter burial depth for carbon storage. While regional variation is significant, findings from suggest that wider continental shelves may offer greater protection from erosion.
9 - Industry,
innovation, and
infrastructure
The use of offshore technology, such as oil and gas exploration and exploitation equipment, retrofitting maritime vessels to use for more sustainable application than fossil fuel extraction and merchant transport.
Project Developers standard operating procedure (SOP) for the disposal and burial of biomass feedstock.
14 - Aquatic life
Project Developers can develop long-term ecological monitoring stations to support monitoring of sub-sediment burial and support regional monitoring for ocean health indicators.
Project Developers demonstrate collaborations with regional universities or governmental institutions for collaborative long-term monitoring, and measurements to be completed. Relevant data should be open source.
Module created
--
February 2025
V1.0
Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score to each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The Riverse Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.
The Project Developer, Riverse Certification team, or the third-party auditor may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.
Each reversal risk with a high or very risk score is subject to:
risk mitigation plan, developed by the Project Developer, that details the long-term strategies and investments for preventing, monitoring, reporting and compensating carbon removal reversal, or
additional contributions to the buffer pool, at a rate of 3% of verified removal Riverse Carbon Credits for each high or very high risk
Marine water
Must be in coastal, sea or ocean waters with a salinity greater than zero. Freshwater burial is not currently eligible.
Anoxic Sediment Layer
Water depth
Must ensure the surface of the water bottom (seafloor or sediment surface) is not exposed to the air during tidal fluctuations.
Methane diffusion
Gas exchange
Shelf slope
Sediment or seafloor gradation must be <1:100 to prevent sediment .
Sediment grain size
At the target sub-sediment depth, grain size must be at minimum 50% of at maximum 2 mm particle size.
Authorization and access
Project Developers must be authorized by jurisdictional authorities to operate, perform burial events and complete monitoring at the given geographic coordinates.
Potential for Future Disturbance
This shall be qualitatively and transparently discussed in the Site Characterization Report to determine if sediment disturbance may occur in the next 40 years, due to deep-sea mining, oil and gas extraction, trawling from fishing vessels, other resource exploitation, or any other use-conflict that might lead to reversal of storage. The site lease agreement should implement suitable barriers to such disturbance events.
Marine life
Characterize the biodiversity of marine life at the storage site, considering species type and abundance. This is used to 1) identify any sensitive biodiversity hotspots and 2) as a benchmark to compare identify any environmental damages after post-burial. Jurisdictional permitting and Environmental Impact Assessment procedures should already cover this, so this is implemented as an abundance of caution.
Sediment grain size
mm
primary data from a pilot survey of the site
secondary data from the specific area concerned (e.g. published peer-reviewed literature or database measurements)
secondary data from an area that is proven to be sufficiently representative and similar to the project area in the appropriate factors that relate to permanent storage
Sub-sediment depth (X)
m
Same as above
Volume of feedstock mixture buried per storage batch*
Equipment logs on machinery delivering the burial
Organic carbon content of feedstock mixture *
% total organic carbon
Reported in the Feedstock Characterization Report for each storage batch
Moisture content of feedstock mixture*
fraction
Same as above
Density of feedstock mixture*
Same as above
Fractional pools of complex organic carbon
Project Developers may choose between three sources for these values:
project incubation experiments with the feedstock mixture in representative marine sub-sediments.
in situ experiments with the biomass feedstock mixture in representative marine sediments.
Rate constants
Same options as above.
Volume of feedstock mixture buried per storage batch
Each burial event
Organic carbon content of feedstock mixture
Moisture content of feedstock mixture
Density of feedstock mixture
Visual proof of burial (e.g. photos or video taken during the burial event)
To confirm that the storage site is closed.
Each burial event
To detect microbial activity that might indicate increased environmental risk, even without %OC changes
Each storage batch, 12 months after burial
Dissolved sulfate in the sediment porewaters
To determine that the depth of storage has > 1 Mm of sulfate for organic carbon degradation to proceed using sulfate as an electron acceptor
Each storage batch, 12 months after burial
Methane (if dissolved sulfate is not measurable)
To assess methane production, which would indicate the use of methanogenesis rather than sulfate reduction
Each storage batch, 12 months after burial, if dissolved sulfate is not measurable
Location
Water Depth
Scour Depth (cm)
Width (m)
Reference
Central CA, USA
30-70
5-500
Onslow Bay, NC, USA
0-20
20
Rio Balsas, Mexico
0-30
50-100
Middle Atlantic Bight, USA
5-30
10-100
Southern Rhode Island, USA
0-10
50
Port Clarence, AK, USA
4-15
10-500
Southampton
1-12
10-60
100-300
California Coast, CA, USA
0-100
40-100
Shinnecock Inslet, NY, USA
3-9
50
30
Gray's Harbor, WA, USA
10-16
100
10-90
Humboldt Bay, CA, USA
16-36
100
Rhone Island Sound, RI, USA
0-42
50-80
Malin Shelf, Ireland
80-120
50-100
100
Drowned Forest, AL, USA
20
100
Dauphin Island, AL, USA
60
30-36
Innisfail, QLD, AUS
28-35
15
40-150
York River, VA, USA
5-100
Copper Harbon, MI, USA
100
50
3-5
English Channel, UK
50-200
10-20
Western Sahara
100
20
New Jersey, USA
100-150
5-15
Los Angeles, CA, USA
100-200
15-50
Mississippi, USA
100-200
5-10
Bolivar Peninsula, TX, USA
3.5
100
Fire Island, NY, USA
5-30
100
Barataria Bight, LA, USA
10-40
2-15
Module name
Sub-sediment burial
Module category
Carbon storage
Methodology name
Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS)
Version
1.0
Methodology ID
RIV-BICRS-CS-MSSB-V1.0
Release date
February 7th, 2025
Status
Public consultation
Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score of each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The VVB and Riverse’s Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.
All risks with a high or very high risk score are subject to a , which outlines how Project Developers will mitigate, monitor, report, and if necessary, compensate for any environmental and/or social harms.
Additional proof may be required for certain high risk environmental and social problems.
The Project Developer, the Riverse Certification team, or the VVB may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.
Note that the life-cycle GHG reduction calculations account for the climate change impacts of most environmental risks. Nonetheless, Project Developers shall transparently describe any identified GHG emission risks in the risk evaluation template.
All risk assessments must also address the defined in the Riverse Standard Rules.
Must reach deep enough into the sub-sediment to reach the . This shall be at least 2 m into the sediment (see C for justification), but actual depth to achieve this varies by site and shall be justified for each project. The depth must remain anoxic year-round, accounting for bioturbation or increased advection/diffusion into sediments. The sub-sediment area must be stable with low likelihood of re-exposure, proven via e.g. established tools for determining sediment stability such as 210Pb or other geochronology tools.
Methane must not be diffusing out of the sediment-water interface. This is measured using as a proxy for methane diffusion. This requirement is to ensure that if any buried feedstock mixture degrades, it would not be emitted as the stronger GHG methane, and would instead be emitted as CO. In any case, loss of organic carbon from the biomass would be detected.
Project Developers shall use all criteria mentioned above to calculate potential gas exchange from embedded depth into the atmosphere, to justify that there will be minimal gas exchange of any evolved gases with the atmosphere during a 1000 year period. This requirement ensures that if any buried feedstock mixture degrades, the CO generated will likely remain trapped in the sediment and remain stored, rather than through the water column into the atmosphere.
reported in the
m
Laboratory testing of
Measured per storage batch, and (1-3 months, and 12 months)
kg/m
and
(oxic biomass bale sinking experiment, values are 0.012, 0.091, 0.897 for each variable, respectively).
and
values are 0.04, 0.002, and 0 for each variable, respectively
To calculate
To calculate
Each storage batch: Day 1 and last day of burial, and 12 months post-burial (optional 1-3 months post-burial for )
To calculate
Each storage batch, Each storage batch: Day 1 and last day of burial, and 12 months post-burial (optional 1-3 months post-burial for )
To calculate
Each storage batch, Each storage batch: Day 1 and last day of burial, and 12 months post-burial (optional 1-3 months post-burial
Dissolved hydrogen sulfide (HS) in storage batch sediment porewaters at 1- and 12-month intervals
A storage batch is all burial events of homogenous feedstock mixtures at one storage site over a maximum of 31 days.
A storage site is a group of similar storage points within 24 km of one another with similar site characteristics.
A storage point is the precise spot where a burial event occurs. Similar storage points may be grouped into a storage site.
Energy co-products
