Earlier this month, a paper co-authored by our colleague Tim Baars was published in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. For us, this publication is not adjacent research but rather speaks directly to the core of Recoal’s methodology.
Recoal converts wet biomass residues through hydrothermal carbonization into hydrochar, a stable, coal-like carbon material. The climate value of that process depends on what happens next. Durable carbon dioxide removal only exists if the carbon is stored safely and for the long term. This paper focuses precisely on that question.
The study evaluates the feasibility of subsurface storage of hydrochar in the Netherlands, combining material characterization with a systematic assessment of geological and near-surface storage options. It examines chemical stability, mechanical behavior, and storage integrity, rather than treating storage as an abstract assumption.
Several conclusions are especially relevant for our work.
First, hydrochar is shown to be chemically stable and mechanically robust enough to be handled, transported, and stored in bulk. This supports our choice of HTC-derived hydrochar as a storage-ready carbon form, particularly for wet biomass streams that are otherwise difficult to use efficiently.
Second, the paper identifies multiple storage configurations that are technically viable, including salt caverns, lightweight filling applications, and sand quarry lakes. These options differ in scale, infrastructure requirements, and deployment context, which matters. Carbon removal does not need a single storage solution to succeed. It benefits from a portfolio.
Third, the analysis demonstrates that durable storage does not have to rely exclusively on deep geological CO₂ injection. Solid carbon storage can integrate into existing subsurface and industrial systems, lowering barriers to deployment and enabling more decentralized approaches.
One of the broader implications of the paper is the importance of technology openness in carbon removal. Progress slows when policy or markets lock in narrow definitions too early. This research shows that alternative pathways, such as solid carbon storage, deserve serious consideration alongside more established approaches.
The Netherlands alone offers several technically promising storage options for hydrochar. That is a single country with a specific geological and regulatory context. Extending this perspective across Europe, and globally, reveals a much larger opportunity space for durable CDR if different technologies are allowed to develop and prove themselves.
For us, this reinforces a core belief: accelerating carbon removal requires openness to multiple storage forms, materials, and infrastructures, evaluated rigorously and compared on performance rather than familiarity.
The paper is clear about what comes next. Field validation, further research, and regulatory frameworks are needed before large-scale deployment. These are not abstract challenges. They align closely with the work we are doing now, from pilot development to certification and engagement with regulators.
Research like this strengthens the foundation on which practical projects can be built. It reduces uncertainty, sharpens design choices, and helps shift discussions from whether a pathway is possible to how it can be implemented responsibly.
We congratulate Tim Baars and his co-authors Hemmo Abels, Anne-Catherine Dieudonné, Joachim Hanssler, and Sebastian Geiger on this contribution. It advances the conversation around durable carbon removal in a way that is directly actionable.
If one country can already show this level of potential, the question becomes less about feasibility and more about how quickly we choose to enable it.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.