Justification not yet generated — showing supporting facts

• Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies include Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), afforestation/reforestation, ocean fertilization, enhanced weathering of minerals, and biochar.
• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) deployment is spread across a greater variety of regions compared to Direct Air Capture (DAC), with the highest potential occurring in the Gulf, Southeast, Ohio Valley, and portions of the Midwest regions of the United States.
• The crossover point where Direct Air Capture (DAC) becomes more cost-effective than Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is reached at 105% (-121 Mt-CO2/year) reductions with low biomass resource availability and at 90% reductions (+243 Mt-CO2/year) with low Direct Air Capture costs.
• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Capture (DAC) tend toward high-utilization operations and are compatible with a range of low-carbon and high-renewable energy systems.
• A lower Direct Air Capture (DAC) capital cost of $107/t-CO2/year increases DAC deployment and decreases Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) investment, resulting in over 340 Mt-CO2/year of DAC removal capacity for the 100% CO2 reduction scenario.
• Integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to investigate carbon dioxide removal options like bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), and afforestation lack the technological, temporal, or spatial resolution found in detailed energy systems models.
• BECCS is the preferred CDR technology up to a 100% CO2 reduction target, but increasing biomass feedstock costs eventually make DAC more economically attractive at the margin for high-CDR-demand scenarios.
• The authors recommend that modeling teams and resource planners incorporate Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), and other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options into their technology choice sets.
• Direct Air Capture (DAC) deployment is less evenly distributed across regions compared to Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).
• Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability generates cost savings by allowing Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) to replace low-capacity-factor assets with higher-utilization assets.
• The deployment of Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) can lead to approximately net-zero economy-wide CO2 emissions.
• For CO2 reductions up to 100%, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is preferred to Direct Air Capture (DAC) when both options are available at their reference costs.
• Modeling teams and resource planners should incorporate Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), and other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options into their technology choice sets when modeling deep decarbonization and net-zero targets.
• The REGEN electric sector model scenarios are run under three carbon dioxide removal (CDR) availability conditions: no CDR, direct air capture (DAC) only, and DAC plus bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is preferred to Direct Air Capture (DAC) for achieving up to a 100% CO2 reduction target, but increasing biomass feedstock costs make Direct Air Capture more attractive at the margin for high-CDR-demand scenarios.
• The use of Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) leads to approximately net-zero economy-wide CO2 emissions.
• The investment and operational dynamics of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Capture (DAC) are less influenced by market fluctuations from variable renewables compared to other resources because they represent small components of regional power systems.
• In the study 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization strategies', Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) deployment saturates at 110% CO2 reductions (-243 Mt-CO2/year) due to increasing marginal biomass feedstock costs, at which point Direct Air Capture (DAC) becomes the least-cost Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technology.
• BECCS deployment saturates at 110% CO2 reductions (-243 Mt-CO2/year) due to increasing marginal biomass feedstock costs, after which DAC becomes the least-cost CDR technology for further emissions reductions.
• In a 100% CO2 reduction cap scenario, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) lowers advanced nuclear capacity from 117 GW to 47 GW when using Direct Air Capture (DAC) plus Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), or to 73 GW when using DAC only.
• Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) reduce costs by replacing low-capacity-factor assets with higher-utilization assets.
• The analysis evaluates scenarios under three Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability conditions: no CDR, Direct Air Capture (DAC) Only, and DAC + BECCS.
• A carbon dioxide removal (CDR) portfolio could include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), afforestation/reforestation, ocean fertilization, enhanced weathering of minerals, and biochar.
• The desirability of Direct Air Capture (DAC) pathways relative to Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and other low-/zero-/negative-CO2 technologies may be influenced by factors including land use change, water demand, lifecycle environmental impacts, nonelectric decarbonization interactions, and innovation spillovers.
• While Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability lowers costs, utilizing both Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) provides only slightly lower costs than using Direct Air Capture (DAC) alone.
• While gross levelized costs of net CO2 removal are lower for Direct Air Capture (DAC) in the study's assumptions, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) provides the distinct advantage of producing firm negative-CO2 electricity generation as a coproduct.
• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is preferred to Direct Air Capture (DAC) for a net-zero electric sector CO2 target, provided that affordable and sustainably managed bioenergy is available.
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS) is selected for net-zero electric sector emissions targets, while direct air capture (DAC) deployment increases as biomass supply costs rise.
• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) deployment is spread across a greater variety of regions compared to Direct Air Capture (DAC) deployment.
• Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, including bioenergy with carbon capture and direct air capture, are considered valuable for achieving stringent climate targets.
• The crossover point where DAC becomes more cost-effective than BECCS is reached at 105% reductions (-121 Mt-CO2/year) when biomass resource availability is low, and at 90% reductions (+243 Mt-CO2/year) when DAC costs are low.
• The annual policy cost savings for a 100% decarbonization cap are $21.2 billion per year with Direct Air Capture (DAC) only, and $28.3 billion per year with both DAC and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).
• The deployment of Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) leads to approximately net-zero economy-wide CO2 emissions in the scenarios analyzed in the study 'Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization strategies'.