Carbon compensation or fuel displacement? Biomass allocation trade-offs for decarbonizing aviation

Waste biomass can deliver climate mitigation through two fundamentally different routes: durable carbon removal via biochar and fossil-jet displacement via sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). We harmonize published techno-economic assessments to a common 2024 delivered-to-market basis and compare both pathways as climate-service abatement cost (USD tCO 2 − 1 removed or avoided). For biochar, we combine an empirical cost-capacity relationship with audited net-removal factors. For SAF, we distinguish the commercially dominant waste-lipid route from the waste- and residue-derived pathways needed for larger long-run scale. Commercial biochar systems currently deliver a median abatement cost of about 177 USD tCO 2 − 1 (5th–95th percentile: 111–497 USD tCO 2 − 1 ), while waste-derived SAF centers near 448 USD tCO 2 − 1 . Current SAF supply is still overwhelmingly lipid-based, whereas the lignocellulosic and municipal-solid-waste routes needed for larger long-term aviation abatement remain earlier in commercialization. These differences suggest complementary timelines: biochar is a near-term removal option, while SAF remains a longer-term aviation decarbonization pathway.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
iScience
Published
2026-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2026.116848
Primary Topic
Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Carbon compensation or fuel displacement? Biomass allocation trade-offs for decarbonizing aviation

Mohammad S. Masnadi, Adam R. Brandt, Hassan El-Houjeiri
iScience
Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
article

Carbon compensation or fuel displacement? Biomass allocation trade-offs for decarbonizing aviation

Mohammad S. Masnadi, Adam R. Brandt, Hassan El-Houjeiri
article en

Abstract

Waste biomass can deliver climate mitigation through two fundamentally different routes: durable carbon removal via biochar and fossil-jet displacement via sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). We harmonize published techno-economic assessments to a common 2024 delivered-to-market basis and compare both pathways as climate-service abatement cost (USD tCO 2 − 1 removed or avoided). For biochar, we combine an empirical cost-capacity relationship with audited net-removal factors. For SAF, we distinguish the commercially dominant waste-lipid route from the waste- and residue-derived pathways needed for larger long-run scale. Commercial biochar systems currently deliver a median abatement cost of about 177 USD tCO 2 − 1 (5th–95th percentile: 111–497 USD tCO 2 − 1 ), while waste-derived SAF centers near 448 USD tCO 2 − 1 . Current SAF supply is still overwhelmingly lipid-based, whereas the lignocellulosic and municipal-solid-waste routes needed for larger long-term aviation abatement remain earlier in commercialization. These differences suggest complementary timelines: biochar is a near-term removal option, while SAF remains a longer-term aviation decarbonization pathway.

iScienceVol. 29(8)
University of Pittsburgh (US), King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (SA), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.