GreenArc BioEnergyIndex

Climate Innovation

The plant is the anchor. The opportunity extends beyond the plant.

Methane-reducing paddy cultivation, suitable residual biomass for soil use, and capture around gas upgrading are pathways to evaluate. Potential carbon-removal integration with participating land remains a research topic.

These are research and evaluation pathways, not current plant results. No GreenArc plant is operating.

A perforated plastic field water tube standing in a drained paddy field, used to monitor water levels for alternate wetting and drying
A field water-level tube among rice plants · Context for evaluating alternate wetting and drying

A maturity ladder, not a promise.

  1. Operating
  2. Deploying
  3. Pilot
  4. Evaluating
  5. Research

The ladder describes possible stages. Our pathways remain at Evaluating or Research; a Pilot label requires evidence of a trial underway.

IAWD

Alternate wetting and drying

Evaluating
Hypothesis
Controlled drainage on paddy fields supplying straw could lower field methane. The inventory default is context, not a field measurement or a GreenArc result.
Proposed pilot design
Proposed paired plots comparing AWD with continuous flooding on the same farms in the same season, subject to farmer consent and irrigation control.
Evidence required
Irrigation-control records, field water-level verification, farmer training records, and measured or method-consistent methane estimates.
MRV approach
Measurement, reporting and verification would combine plot-level water monitoring with an established rice methodology. Inventory defaults would not be reported as pilot results.
Stop criteria
Stop if the water regime cannot be controlled or verified, yield loss is unacceptable to farmers, or no method can credibly measure the change.
Carbon rights & double-counting
Agree farmer consent and carbon ownership before any claim. Never double-count the change with avoided-burning claims.
IIBiochar

Biochar

Evaluating
Hypothesis
Separate questions guide evaluation: could biochar help digestion, and could char applied to mineral soils qualify as a removal? Laboratory food-waste results are a reason to test, not evidence for commercial paddy-straw digesters.
Proposed pilot design
Start with proposed bench tests against a control; then, if a plant is commissioned and a trial is approved, consider a slipstream trial. Keep any soil-application study separate.
Evidence required
Our own char production data, including temperature and carbon content; digester performance against a control; and soil-application records. Inventory persistence estimates are not a char-quality pass/fail test.
MRV approach
Removal claims require an applicable methodology, lifecycle accounting and verification. In-digester use is not a removal.
Stop criteria
Stop if no repeatable digestion benefit appears at bench or in any approved slipstream trial. Do not make a soil-removal claim without qualifying evidence.
Carbon rights & double-counting
Agree ownership before any claim. Count char once, either in process or in soil, without duplicate carbon claims.
IIIBiogenic CO₂

Biogenic CO₂

Evaluating
Hypothesis
Carbon dioxide separated during upgrading could be recovered for use or storage, or later methanated. Recovery performance and the energy and mass balance remain untested hypotheses.
Proposed pilot design
Propose a recoverable-tonnes study once upgrading technology is selected. Any measurement or recovery trial would depend on a commissioned plant and trial approval.
Evidence required
Measured recoverable quantity, purity and recovery performance, with methane losses counted in net accounting.
MRV approach
Metered capture and end-use or storage records, with methane losses included. Utilisation that re-releases carbon dioxide is not a removal.
Stop criteria
Stop if recoverable volume or purity is too low, or if no durable end use can be established.
Carbon rights & double-counting
Agree ownership and end-use accounting before any claim. Do not count the same captured stream as both utilisation and a durable removal.
IVERW

Enhanced rock weathering

Research
Hypothesis
Potential carbon-removal integration with participating land is a research topic. Field evidence in Indian rice systems is early, not yet peer-reviewed.
Proposed pilot design
Before proposing a field trial, screen rock specifications and safety, define a removal-measurement protocol, and seek participating farmers’ consent. Any trial would remain conditional on these checks.
Evidence required
Rock specification, heavy-metal checks, dust controls and removal measurement before any claim.
MRV approach
Define a baseline and a credible removal-measurement approach before a trial. Track rock application and field sampling; no removal claim without verification.
Stop criteria
Stop if the rock source fails safety checks or removal cannot be measured.
Carbon rights & double-counting
Agree farmer consent and carbon ownership before any claim. Check for overlapping land-based claims and count any verified removal only once.

Evidence before a carbon claim.

  • No negative carbon-intensity claim until a baseline is defined and methane losses are measured.
  • Silicon and nutrient recovery, including struvite and ammonia, are study topics, not claimed benefits.
  • Any farmer carbon-sharing concept needs ownership, farmer-share and verification arrangements first.

Peer-reviewed research finds that methane leakage during digestion and biogas handling can largely erode the climate benefit of biogas systems. Net accounting therefore has to count methane losses.Basis

The methane-loss study covers wastewater biogas facilities, not agricultural-residue CBG. It supports a general accounting principle only.

Sources & boundaries

External evidence informs proposed tests. It does not establish GreenArc performance or credit eligibility.