二氧化碳去除的经济学与政策综述
Review of Economics and Policies of Carbon Dioxide Removal.
作者信息
Oh Soyoung, Greene Jenna, Honegger Matthias, Michaelowa Axel
机构信息
Climate Policy Lab, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, 160 Packard Ave, Medford, MA 02155 USA.
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
出版信息
Curr Sustain Renew Energy Rep. 2025;12(1):6. doi: 10.1007/s40518-025-00252-1. Epub 2025 Mar 7.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Despite the increasing political attention and support, the high costs of many carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies remain a barrier to their large-scale deployment. We provide an overview of the economics for two key CDR options - BECCS and DACCS - and review proposed and existing CDR policies to address the "CDR gap" in achieving the long-term temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
SUMMARY
Although we lack detailed cost breakdowns of actual projects, our review suggests that the cost range for BECCS is generally lower than that for DACCS. The key cost parameter for BECCS is the sustainability of biomass feedstock, and for DACCS the energy intensity.
RECENT FINDINGS
Cost estimates for DACCS have increased due to experiences from commercial operation, for BECCS they are increasingly differentiated according to the sustainability of feedstock.
综述目的
尽管政治关注度和支持力度不断提高，但许多二氧化碳去除（CDR）技术的高成本仍是其大规模部署的障碍。我们概述了两种关键CDR选项——生物能源与碳捕获与封存（BECCS）和直接空气碳捕获与封存（DACCS）的经济情况，并审查了为实现《巴黎协定》的长期温度目标以解决“CDR差距”而提出的和现有的CDR政策。
总结
尽管我们缺乏实际项目的详细成本细分，但我们的综述表明，BECCS的成本范围通常低于DACCS。BECCS的关键成本参数是生物质原料的可持续性，而DACCS的关键成本参数是能源强度。
最新发现
由于商业运营的经验，DACCS的成本估计有所增加，而BECCS的成本估计则根据原料的可持续性越来越多地有所不同。
Zotero 插件