carbon dioxide removal ↔ direct air capture

Relations (1)

related 4.32 — strongly supporting 19 facts

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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
The 100% CO2 cap case without Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) results in net energy storage losses that are over an order of magnitude higher than the electricity use of Direct Air Capture (DAC) in the 100% DAC Only case, because gas turbines are replaced with hydrogen and electrolysis, which have low roundtrip efficiencies.
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.
Direct Air Capture (DAC) deployment increases as biomass supply costs rise in scenarios with higher demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
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.
The spatial allocation of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) deployment is determined by regional variations in costs and value, although the value of carbon removal for Direct Air Capture (DAC) is assumed to be uniform across regions due to the scenario assumption of a national CO2 cap.
The crossover point where Direct Air Capture (DAC) becomes the least-cost Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technology is reached at 105% reductions (-121 Mt-CO2/year) with low biomass resource availability, and at 90% reductions (+243 Mt-CO2/year) with low Direct Air Capture costs.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, including bioenergy with carbon capture and direct air capture, are considered valuable for achieving stringent climate targets.
When Direct Air Capture (DAC) is the only available Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) option, deployment is 91 Mt-CO2/year for the 100% CO2 reduction scenario at reference costs.
Direct Air Capture (DAC) consumes 24.8 TWh/year in the 100% CO2 cap case (with 81.1 Mt-CO2/year net removals) and 322 TWh/year in the 140% CO2 cap case (with 1050 Mt-CO2/year net removals), representing 0.42% and 5.39% of projected end-use electricity demand, respectively.

Facts (19)

Sources

Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep ... - Nature nature.com Nature 19 facts

claimCarbon 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.

claimBECCS 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.

perspectiveThe 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.

claimCarbon 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.

claimModeling 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.

procedureThe 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).

measurementIn 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.

measurementBECCS 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.

measurementIn 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.

claimThe 100% CO2 cap case without Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) results in net energy storage losses that are over an order of magnitude higher than the electricity use of Direct Air Capture (DAC) in the 100% DAC Only case, because gas turbines are replaced with hydrogen and electrolysis, which have low roundtrip efficiencies.

referenceThe analysis evaluates scenarios under three Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) availability conditions: no CDR, Direct Air Capture (DAC) Only, and DAC + BECCS.

claimA 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.

claimDirect Air Capture (DAC) deployment increases as biomass supply costs rise in scenarios with higher demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

claimWhile 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.

claimThe spatial allocation of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) deployment is determined by regional variations in costs and value, although the value of carbon removal for Direct Air Capture (DAC) is assumed to be uniform across regions due to the scenario assumption of a national CO2 cap.

measurementThe crossover point where Direct Air Capture (DAC) becomes the least-cost Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technology is reached at 105% reductions (-121 Mt-CO2/year) with low biomass resource availability, and at 90% reductions (+243 Mt-CO2/year) with low Direct Air Capture costs.

claimCarbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, including bioenergy with carbon capture and direct air capture, are considered valuable for achieving stringent climate targets.

measurementWhen Direct Air Capture (DAC) is the only available Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) option, deployment is 91 Mt-CO2/year for the 100% CO2 reduction scenario at reference costs.

measurementDirect Air Capture (DAC) consumes 24.8 TWh/year in the 100% CO2 cap case (with 81.1 Mt-CO2/year net removals) and 322 TWh/year in the 140% CO2 cap case (with 1050 Mt-CO2/year net removals), representing 0.42% and 5.39% of projected end-use electricity demand, respectively.