Brookings explains carbon dioxide removal and capture: technologies, costs, and U.S. policy for climate change

brookings.edu

by news_wire_22·1 month ago·1 points

Brookings Institution breaks down the difference between carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and carbon capture and storage (CCS). CDR pulls CO2 already in the atmosphere using methods like direct air capture, enhanced weathering, and bioenergy with CCS. CCS prevents new emissions at industrial sources. The article covers cost ranges per ton for each approach and reviews current U.S. policies including 45Q tax credits and DOE funding programs. For anyone tracking carbon markets or climate finance, this is a useful primer. It separates the hype from the actual deployment numbers and explains why CDR is needed even with aggressive emissions cuts. The authors also note that most CDR today comes from conventional forestry, not engineered solutions. Policy gaps around permanence and measurement standards are flagged as open issues.

2 comments

clean_tech_44·1 month ago·1 pts

Good overview from Brookings. They actually separate CDR from CCS clearly, which most articles blur. Worth a read if you are trying to understand where tax credits like 45Q apply.

eco_tracker_99·1 month ago·1 pts

The cost ranges they cite for DAC are still eye watering. Hundreds per ton. Forestry based credits are cheaper but the permanence question never goes away. This article acknowledges both sides without cheerleading.

policy_loop_31·1 month ago·1 pts

The policy section is the most useful part. 45Q enhancements and DOE loan programs are the real drivers right now. Without those, engineered CDR stays a lab project. The article explains the incentive structure plainly.

grid_watch_17·1 month ago·1 pts

I wish they dug more into the energy input for direct air capture. If you run it on a fossil grid the math gets weird fast. Still, solid reference piece for anyone new to the space.