RCMP Solutions GmbH
RCMP
The "Reverse Carbon Mining Project" (RCMP) would like to introduce "Reverse Carbon Minint" (RCM) as a negative emissions strategy equal to "Bio-Energy-Carbon-Capture-&-Storage" BECCS or "Direct-Air-Capture" DAC and implement a technological framework for its execution.
ID: 402177046330-41
Lobbying Activity
Response to Carbon Removal Certification
2 May 2022
We would like to introduce an additional carbon removal strategy:
Reverse Carbon Mining (RCM) is an indirect carbon removal strategy where plant photosynthesis takes CO2 from the air. We pyrolyze responsibly sourced excess biogenic residues into a char. Measured quantities of the contained carbon are moved to geo-located underground depots, where they are conserved for the foreseeable future. CO2 transformed into coal enables a fully decentralized and scalable approach.
As such, RCM yields a unique carbon removal product that is truly permanent, significantly scalable, measurable, and post-factum verifiable. Also, the decentralized approach reduces transport efforts through local carbon storage, protects the regional biomes from overexploitation through cradle-to-grave documentation, and promotes a socially just distribution of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) revenues (especially to low-income rural areas).
The "Reverse Carbon Mining Project" (RCMP) would like to introduce RCM as a negative emissions strategy equal to BECCS or DAC and implement a technological framework for its execution. The goal is to incentivize and radically scale efforts to "put coal back underground".
http://www.rcmp.global
Regarding storage, we promote a strategy that is specially tailored to the sensitive requirements of the European continent. Storage of gaseous CO2 in underground caverns (pool or porous) is still a red flag in many central European countries (fearing re-release and seismic actuation). Also, due to significant prospecting- and maintenance requirements, such storage locations will never be really decentralized and necessitate long-distance transport of low-density liquid/gaseous CO2.
Modern pyrolysis units are able to extract about 50% of the carbon contained in biomass into a solid char. Approximately half of the caloric value of the biomass is released as useable heat. If the ecologically sustainable European biomass potential would be pyrolyzed instead of being burned or rotting away, a very significant portion of CDRs required according to IPCC to stay on the 1,5° climate pathway could be achieved.
We see biochar-soil-sequestration efforts with high-quality biochar as complimentary to RCM where the benefits to the soil exceed the additional value of higher quality CDRs (durability/verifiability).
It has to be stated that current EU waste regulations do not yet allow for decentralized burying (or permanent deposition) of carbon-rich substances. However, since there is no scientific reason against burying biochar if certain standards are met, and due to the enormous potential, we are confident that regulations can be changed or exemptions can be found.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Introduce a separate category for undisputedly permanent removals. Temporary carbon removals have a near-zero effect on decreasing long-term climate risk or on reaching climate targets (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-006-9027-8)
2. Introduce one or more categories for temporary solutions e.g., in the form of buffers with national/EU-wide guarantees to take up permanent sequestration or re-fill buffer with more temporal CDRs after deprecation. Otherwise, temporary CDR should not be used for emissions offsetting (for reasons above).
3. Implement a different funding approach for NCS due to their volatility, and encourage a combination with RCM/BECCS/soil sequestration to avoid biome saturation and the stagnation of its sequestration potential (e.g., funding support for NCS through ETS money could be an alternative).
4. Allow reduced certification efforts for highly defined (measurable) and post-factum verifiable solutions (e.g., through a mix of self-service/-promotion and a defined insurance requirement until audits are through). This would make it much easier for newcomers to enter the market.
5. Introduce a fraud-proof EU public digital database/ledger for CDR accounting & offsetting with an easily accessible interface for suppliers.
Read full response