Biomass is a strong lever for carbon dioxide removal, but it’s scarce, and the same feedstock can either be used for pure bioenergy generation, substituting fossil energy, or routed into biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS) technologies. So how do we decide when biomass should serve carbon removal rather than fossil energy substitution?
Our research builds a methodological framework to compare biomass utilization pathways on a common basis, using two metrics: net private benefit (the investor’s return) and net social benefit (the value to society once environmental externalities are priced in), both per unit of biomass input. A key feature is that the framework clearly distinguishes emissions from substituting fossil energy, priced as environmental externalities, and actual carbon removal, valued as carbon removal credits.
Applied to a German case (bioenergy generation, biochar carbon removal, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) the picture is consistent: BiCRS pathways tend to be socially valuable but privately more unattractive than conventional bioenergy under current conditions. Higher capital and operational costs and current compensation levels for carbon removal explain lower private benefits.
I’d like to discuss: what would it take, in crediting design, minimum prices, technological or policy support, to close the gap between the private and societal value of BiCRS?
Interested in learning more? Join my presentation in the session LCA & Techno-economic Assessment 2 (Room B, 10 June 2026, 12:30).