The paper presents the results and analysis of biomass processing in order to provide the conditions for the most profitable use of the biomass in modern and efficient power generation systems with particular attention put on the decrease of the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and no need to develop carbon capture and storage plants. The promising concept of CO2 storage via the production of biochar and the advantages of its application as a promising carbon sink is also presented and the results are supported by authors’ own experimental data. The idea enables the production of electricity, as well as (optionally) heat and cold from the thermal treatment of biomass with simultaneous storage of the CO2 in a stable and environmentally-friendly way. The key part of the process is run in a specially-designed reactor where the biomass is heated up in the absence of oxygen. The evolved volatile matter is used to produce heat/cold and electricity while the remaining solid product (almost completely dry residue) is sequestrated in soil. The results indicate that in order to reduce the emission of CO2 the biomass should rather be ‘cut and char’ than just ‘cut and burn’, particularly that the charred biomass may also become a significant source of nutrients for the plants after sequestration in soil.

Carbon capture and sequestration from a stationary source comprises four distinct engineering processes: separation of CO₂ from the other flue gases, compression, transportation, and injection into the chosen storage site. An analysis of the thermodynamic and transport properties of CO₂ shows that dissolving this gas in seawater at depths more than 600 m is, most likely, an optimal long-term storage method; and that for transportation, the CO₂ must be in the denser supercritical state at pressures higher than 7.377 MPa. The separation, compression, transportation, and injection processes require significant energy expenditures, which are determined in this paper using realistic equipment efficiencies, for the cases of two currently in operation coal power plants in Texas. The computations show that the total energy requirements for carbon removal and sequestration are substantial, close to one-third of the energy currently generated by the two power plants. The cost analysis shows that two parameters – the unit cost of the pipeline and the discount factor of the corporation – have a very significant effect on the annualized cost of the CCS process. Doubling the unit cost of the pipeline increases the total annualized cost of the entire CCS project by 36% and increasing the discount rate from 5% to 15% increases this annualized cost by 32%.