European Commission carbon removals workshop: DOCCS and mineral carbonation

/in ,

Cerulogy delivered a European Commission workshop on two carbon removal activities, in partnership with ICF and Ecodiversity. Direct ocean carbon capture and storage (DOCCS) encompasses a number of technologies that extract carbon dioxide from seawater for eventual geological storage. Mineral carbonation involves the absorption and permanent binding of carbon dioxide into materials (concrete and alkaline industrial wastes) in the form of solid carbonates.

The one-day workshop took place on 09th February 2026 with the goal of gathering input from experts and stakeholders to inform the CRCF process. Cerulogy and Ecodiversity presented technical reports that provided an overview of how the carbon removal pathways work, challenges in implementation, issues around quantification and baselining, and potential sustainability impacts. Experts from academia and industry presented on specific topics, and participated in discussions.

Presentations and workshop recording

European Commission carbon removals workshop: ERW and OAE

/in ,

Cerulogy delivered a European Commission workshop on two carbon removal technologies, in partnership with ICF and Ecodiversity. The ocean is the Earth’s largest reservoir of carbon (in the form of dissolved inorganic carbon, or DIC): by adding alkalinity to the Earth’s surface, watercourses and/or oceans, enhanced rock weathering (ERW) and ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) seek to augment this reservoir and stimulate net draw-down of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The one-day workshop took place on 25th September 2025 with the goal of gathering input from experts and stakeholders to inform the CRCF process. Cerulogy and Ecodiversity presented technical reports that provided an overview of how the carbon removal pathways work, challenges in implementation, thorny issues around quantification and baselining, and potential sustainability impacts. Ten ERW/OAE experts from academia and industry presented on specific topics, and participated in discussions.

Presentations and workshop recording
Review paper on OAE
Review paper on ERW

 

Diverted harvest: Environmental Risk from Growth in International Biofuel Demand

/in , , , ,

In this report for Transport and Environment, we describe the biofuel policy frameworks and targets of the nine leading global producers and consumers: the USA, Brazil, the EU+UK, Indonesia, China, India, Argentina, Canada, and Thailand. The report links these countries’ biofuel feedstock demand to ecological risks, to the carbon opportunity cost of using extra land for agriculture, and to the greenhouse gas implications of relying on biofuels to displace fossil fuels.

We calculate that about 32 Mha of cropland is currently devoted to biofuel feedstock production after accounting for co-product allocation. The benefit of this, as conventionally calculated (i.e. ignoring ILUC), is a 233 MtCO2e/year emissions saving compared to an equivalent amount of fossil fuels. But returning this land to its natural state — and replenishing its above- and below-ground carbon — could provide a much larger carbon sink of 428 MtCO2e/year. While rewilding of agricultural land on this scale is not currently plausible, these numbers underscore the importance of thinking about land use in ways that aren’t readily captured by conventional lifecycle analysis.

Under present policy targets, biofuel consumption in the nine study countries is set to increase from 104 Mtoe in 2023 to 150 Mtoe in 2030. Given existing and future feedstock slates, and constraints on advanced and residual feedstock supply, we conclude that over 90% of this is likely to come from crops: that means an extra 20 Mha devoted to biofuels worldwide. Accounting for the range of crops grown in each country, we calculate that if ILUC is taken into account, biofuel policy in 2030 will increase emissions from transport fuels by 34 MtCO2e/year compared to 2023.

The EU+UK and Thailand are found to have adopted policies that are reducing biofuel-associated emissions down over time. The USA, India, and Indonesia, by contrast, are expected to expand use of high-ILUC palm and soybean oils, and so their biofuel policies are likely to be harming rather than benefitting the climate.

Download our report
Read the T&E briefing

A federal clean fuel standard (CFS) for the USA

/in , ,

Clean fuel standards (CFSs) are regulations which reward or penalise transport fuels based on their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions — in particular, their emissions with respect to a ‘compliance standard’ which tightens each year. A number of CFSs are already in operation around the world.

Our paper published in the journal Energy Policy examines a hypothetical CFS covering the USA’s road and aviation segments. We model two transport decarbonisation scenarios: one with an emphasis on road electrification, and the other with an emphasis on next-generation liquid fuels and CCS. Both are designed to be consistent with a net-zero-2050 target for the USA’s economy as a whole, with road transport achieving a 87-94% carbon intensity cut and aviation ∼84% (excluding contrails). The electrification-heavy scenario offers faster and deeper emissions cuts, as well as being a significantly cheaper decarbonisation option.

The development and results of these scenarios provide context for considering CFS design issues: the ambition of targets, how to drive investment, and the need for restrictions on certain biofuel feedstocks.

Download the paper

Biochar and carbon accounting

/in ,

Biochar: accounting for carbon benefits of production and use

This report, commissioned by the International Council of Clean Transportation (ICCT), explores different pathways for crediting biochar in greenhouse gas lifecycle accounting frameworks. We focus on existing regulations such as the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) and the UK’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), which allow credit for soil carbon accumulation through improved agricultural management practices.

As biochar moves towards a mainstream role in agriculture and carbon markets, there is a clear need for robust accounting guidance. Through worked examples and policy analysis, the study unpacks key methodological questions around how biochar’s role, as both a soil amendment and a carbon removal product, may be fairly and accurately accounted in carbon crediting frameworks. We identify key safeguards, improvements to existing frameworks, and the need for measures to limit the risk of double crediting.

Download the report

Staying Aloft: Support Mechanisms for ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuels’ in the United Kingdom and European Union

/in , , , ,

The EU’s ReFuelEU Aviation and the UK’s SAF Mandate place requirements on fuel suppliers to bring alternative aviation fuels to market. In parallel, financial support for alternative fuels comes from the EU’s reimbursement scheme, which subsidises some fraction of the cost difference paid by airlines, and the UK’s guaranteed strike price (GSP), which shields SAF producers from variability in market prices.

This report examines the policy frameworks in the two regions and reviews their strengths and weaknesses. It finds that the structure and targeting of their complementary support mechanisms will deliver diverging outcomes. The EU’s reimbursement scheme will benefit airlines and reduce the costs to flyers, but will do little to motivate next-generation fuel producers. In contrast, the UK’s GSP delivers clear reassurance to fuel producers and is more likely to stimulate investment in the industry by facilitating finance availability and reducing the cost of capital.

The report presents illustrative model scenarios and concludes by distilling major challenges and recommendations for the two policy frameworks.

  • The EU’s mandate trajectory and its slightly obscure system of non-compliance penalties could be reviewed, and a joined-up approach adopted for targeting resources towards supporting investment in more sustainable alternative fuels.
  • For the UK, there are some important details to iron out about how price-setting works in the GSP; and a potentially vacillating balance of alternative fuel supply and demand from the EU may pose challenges for compliance and costs.
Download from the ICCT website

 

Deforestation risk from Nordic alternative fuel policy

/in ,

A report for Rainforest Foundation Norway

This report examines the climate and environmental risks associated with biofuel policies in Sweden, Finland, and Norway. While these countries are often recognised as climate leaders, their support for certain biofuel feedstocks, including palm derivatives, used cooking oil, and animal fats, raises concerns about indirect land use change, deforestation, and peatland degradation. The findings suggest that without further safeguards, Nordic biofuel demand could drive deforestation and peat loss amounting to tens of thousands of hectares annually by 2030.

Finland consumes particularly high volumes of PFAD – palm fatty acid distillates – in its biofuel sector. PFAD is a valuable by-product of palm oil refining, and is linked to the expansion of oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia. Sweden and Norway have taken steps to exclude PFAD, but continue to rely heavily on residual oils, which come with their own environmental challenges. In all three countries, current policy frameworks do not fully account for indirect emissions or the global displacement effects of feedstock use.

This report provides country-specific recommendations to align Nordic biofuel policy with climate and biodiversity goals, including capping high-risk feedstocks, supporting the development of advanced alternatives, and accelerating transport electrification. The analysis underscores the importance of embedding strong environmental safeguards in biofuel policy to ensure that efforts to decarbonise transport do not undermine broader sustainability objectives.

Download the report from the Rainforest Foundation Norway website

Fuelling nature

/in , , , , , ,

How e-fuels can mitigate biodiversity risk in EU aviation and maritime policy

This report, commissioned by Opportunity Green on behalf of the Skies and Seas Hydrogen-fuels Accelerator Coalition (SASHA), explores the biodiversity risks associated with the EU’s efforts to decarbonise aviation and maritime transport. The ReFuelEU Aviation and FuelEU Maritime regulations aim to engender a rapid transition away from fossil fuels and towards alternative fuels; but this raises concerns for nature protection, potentially undermining the EU’s biodiversity commitments under the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Nature Restoration Regulation. Cerulogy’s report assesses how different fuel pathways – biofuels from crops, residues and waste oils, and synthetic e-fuels – compare in terms of pressure on land, habitats, species, and ecosystems.

Cerulogy modelled alternative fuel demand in the aviation and maritime segments to 2050. We considered four scenarios representing different dominant fuel production technologies: cellulosic residues, cellulosic crops, lipids, and electrofuels. For each scenario, we estimated feedstock and land requirements, and developed a biodiversity risk framework to evaluate land-use change, habitat degradation, species loss, pollution, and agrochemical use. To assess policy coherence, we examined trade-offs and synergies between the EU’s transport decarbonisation goals and its nature and biodiversity policy framework.

Our findings show that, while all fuel pathways carry some environmental risk, electrofuels may represent the lowest overall risk to biodiversity, largely due to their minimal land footprint and reduced pressure on ecosystems, species, and habitats. Even biofuels derived from residues and wastes may have implications for nature when scaled to meet growing fuel demand. The EU’s current approach risks locking in high-impact fuel systems unless it also addresses total energy use in aviation and shipping. Until policymakers are ready to confront demand growth in these hard-to-decarbonise sectors, support for options like electrofuels may be the clearest path for the EU to aligning its climate and biodiversity goals.

Download the report from the SASHA website

Vertical Take-off? Cost Implications and Industrial Development Scenarios for the UK SAF Mandate

/in , , ,

In this paper for the International Council on Clean Transportation we consider the industrial development implications of the targets for alternative aviation fuel supply that are being introduced throught he UK’s SAF Mandate.

Read the paper

 

4th meeting of the EU expert group on carbon removals

/in ,

Cerulogy is working for the European Commission on certification methodologies permanent carbon removals under the EU carbon removal certification framework (CRCF). Dr Malins chaired sessions focused on the certification of DACCS, BioCCS, and biochar carbon removal on the third day of the 4th meeting of the European Commission’s Expert Group on Carbon Removals.

Watch the recording