ArticleiScience2026
Why cost reduction alone cannot deliver bankable carbon dioxide removal.
Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is indispensable for net-zero, yet CDR projects remain unbankable for institutional lenders. Using a stochastic project-finance model in which financing terms follow from simulated cash flows rather than being assumed, we examine when BECCS and DAC become bankable. Under unhedged conditions bankability is effectively zero, with lender coverage failing across most of the financing space and equity hurdles met in less than 0.1%. Contrary to the emphasis on cost reduction, credit-worthy offtake is the primary determinant. Learning alone lowers the levelized cost of removal by up to 38%, yet leaves projects unbankable, whereas offtake raises BECCS bankability to 43%, or 57% with learning. DAC requires offtake above US$2,500 per tCO
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.