ReviewCurrent sustainable/renewable energy reports2025
Review of Economics and Policies of Carbon Dioxide Removal.
Review in Current sustainable/renewable energy reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capture and conversion of carbon oxides (CO&COScientific reports · 2026Article
- COApplied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.