See also the overview page with the various ‘Sieve studies’ related to the SDE++.
In this study, we have revised the sieve method based on the experiences of the past three years. We subsequently reapplied the sieve for the 2026 SDE++ subsidy round using the revised method. The main overarching change compared to the previous method is the introduction of interviews with industrial parties that are working on CO₂ emissions reduction and for whom CCS appears to be a realistic option. Through these interviews, we aim to better align the application of the sieve with real-world practice.
In addition, we have made adjustments to the first part of the method, the “funnel”, in order to gain better insight into when sustainable technologies genuinely constitute an alternative to CCS. The final part of the method, “embedding in broader policy”, has become more focused in this revision. We now concentrate on three aspects: the availability of alternative energy carriers, the availability of infrastructure for these alternative energy carriers, and the sensitivity of subsidy intensity to the different components of which it is composed.
In applying the sieve for 2026, as in previous years, we identify the industrial heat pump as a cost-effective sustainable alternative for the production of low-temperature (LT) heat. For the evaporation of aqueous solutions, we identify both the industrial heat pump and mechanical vapour recompression (MVR) as cost-effective sustainable alternatives. For the production of high-temperature (HT) heat, we identify the solid biomass furnace as a cost-effective sustainable alternative.
We recommend excluding CCS subsidies for the processes ‘production of LT heat’ and ‘evaporation of aqueous solutions’, as was done last year. This provides clarity for companies and prevents CCS from being chosen where cost-effective alternatives are available within the lifetime of a CCS installation. Although we conclude that a solid biomass furnace is a cost-effective alternative to CCS for the process “production of HT heat”, we recommend not excluding this process from CCS subsidies. Doing so would come at the expense of other potential uses of biomass, drive up the price of solid biomass, and would not be in line with current policy on the use of sustainable biomass.