Ieaghg 202 - : Global Assessment of Direct Air Capture Cost

IEAGHG Technical Report
2021-05
December 2021
Global Assessment of
Direct Air Capture Costs
IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME

International Energy Agency
The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established in November 1974. Its primary mandate was – and is – two-
fold: to promote energy security amongst its member countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply, and provide
authoritative research and analysis on ways to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 30 member countries and beyond. Within
its mandate, the IEA created Technology Collaboration Programmes (TCPs) to further facilitate international collaboration on energy related
topics. To date, there are 38 TCPs who carry out a wide range of activities on energy technology and related issues.
DISCLAIMER
The GHG TCP, also known as the IEAGHG, is organised under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA) but is functionally
and legally autonomous. Views, findings and publications of the IEAGHG do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA
Secretariat or its individual member countries.
This report was prepared as an account of the work sponsored by IEAGHG. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein
do not necessarily reflect those of the IEAGHG, its members, the organisations listed below, nor any employee or persons acting on
behalf of any of them. In addition, none of these make any warranty, express or implied, assumes any liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product of process disclosed or represents that its use would
not infringe privately owned rights, including any parties intellectual property rights. Reference herein to any commercial product,
process, service or trade name, trade mark or manufacturer does not necessarily constitute or imply any endorsement, recommendation
or any favouring of such products.
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © IEA Environmental Projects Ltd. (IEAGHG) 2021. All rights reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CITATIONS
This report describes work undertaken by Element Energy on behalf of IEAGHG. The principal researchers were:
• Yorukcan Erbay
Antonia Mattos
To ensure the quality and technical integrity of the research undertaken by IEAGHG each study is managed by an appointed
IEAGHG manager. The report is also reviewed by a panel of independent technical experts before its release.
The IEAGHG manager for this report was: Jasmin Kemper
The expert reviewers for this report were:
• Ajay Ghambir, Imperial College London

• Ali Kiani, CSIRO
• Amy Ruddock, Carbon Engineering
• Gelein de Koeijer, Equinor
• Jay Fuhrman, PNNL
• Piera Patrizio, Imperial College London
• Sara Budinis, IEA
The report should be cited in literature as follows: ‘IEAGHG, “Global Assessment of Direct Air Capture Costs”, 2021-05,
December 2021.’
Further information or copies of the report can be obtained by contacting IEAGHG at:
IEAGHG, Pure Offices, Cheltenham Office Park

Hatherley Lane, Cheltenham,
GLOS., GL51 6SH, UK

IEAGHG Technical Report

w w w. i e a g h g. o rg
GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF DIRECT AIR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
(DACCS) COSTS, SCALE AND POTENTIAL
This study aims to improve the current DACCS cost-performance evidence base by synthesising data
from the recent literature and technology developers to explore the economic feasibility of different
DACCS technologies (both liquid and solid based systems) across timescales, capacities,
configurations, and numerous global siting factors. It also provides recommendations for the
integrated assessment modelling (IAM) community and policymakers to inform next steps for
DACCS implementation and deployment.
Key Messages
• Although DACCS is more expensive than many carbon mitigation and removal options,
careful plant siting and rapid learnings can achieve significantly more competitive DACCS
costs.
• First-of-a-kind (FOAK) DACCS projects are likely to range from ~$400-$700/net-tCO2,
when global average solar photovoltaics (PV) costs are used, or ~$350-$550/net-tCO2, when
lowest-cost renewables are used.
• Significant cost reduction can be achieved for nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) DACCS plants, reaching
~$194-$230/net-tCO2 for 1 MtCO2/year scale, driven by reduced electricity prices, cost of
capital and upfront capital investment. Energy costs can be as much as 50% of long-term
liquid DACCS costs. NOAK DACCS costs in the range of ~$150-$200/net-tCO2 may be
achieved if very low-cost solar energy is used. Long-term costs were found to be significantly
higher than the industry target of $100/tCO2 captured, except under ambitious cost-
performance assumptions and favourable conditions.
• The lifecycle emissions associated with DACCS range from 7-17% of the CO2 captured for
FOAK plants and 3-7% for NOAK plants (if low carbon energy is used).
• Since no large-scale plant is built to date, inherent uncertainties on most parameters are high.
The largest uncertainties requiring major assumptions are on capital costs, plant scaling
factors, future cost reductions through learning, and solid adsorbent cost-performance
dynamic.
• To date DACCS representation in integrated assessment models (IAMs) has been relatively
simplistic. Technical parameters compiled and developed throughout this study can be used
for representation of DACCS technologies in future IAM studies. IAM practitioners should
consider differentiating between DACCS technologies and considering multiple plant
configurations. Practitioners should also take care to ensure consistent treatment of financing
costs for all technologies across their models. Furthermore, operating and labour costs are
likely to be region dependent and IAMs can use reference tables to estimate how these costs
could differ between countries.
• Most current DACCS policy support consists of generic R,D&D funding, and financial
support aimed at wider negative emissions technologies (NETs) or carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technologies. The US, UK, EU, Canada and Australia are key regions with relatively
developed CCS regulations and R&D and demonstration programmes targeting carbon
removal or general CCS projects. The 45Q tax credits in the US and California’s Low Carbon
Fuel Standard (LCFS) are currently the only financial mechanisms in the world available for
large-scale DACCS projects.
i
Background to the Study
NETs are essential for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and achieving global
temperature targets. NETs, including DACCS, can be used to offset emissions from industries that are
very difficult to abate, such as aviation, thereby decoupling decarbonisations efforts from the source
of emissions. Analyses by IAMs presented in IPCC reports show that 87% of all IAM scenarios
consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 2°C and 100% of IAM scenarios limiting
temperature rise to 1.5°C require large-scale NETs (1.3 to 29 GtCO2/year) to be deployed in the
second half of this century.
DACCS has some advantages over other NETs due to its smaller land and water footprint, as well as
potential for easy scalability. NETs interacting with biomass, such as afforestation, soil carbon storage
and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), require significant water and arable land.
Other chemical NETs, such as enhanced weathering, risk changing the chemistry of oceans and rivers.
DACCS avoids many of these limitations as it has a comparatively small land footprint, but does
require a sustainable energy source, geological CO2 storage to operate and is relatively immature
technology with as-yet unproven deployment potential. Furthermore, the varying levels of modularity
of DACCS systems imply potential for easy scaling up and rapid deployment.
Current information on DACCS costs, performance, and impact of plant siting have several data gaps
and significant uncertainties. Despite the climate relevance of DACCS technologies, current capture
capacities are only at ktCO2/year levels. Therefore, literature on DACCS is limited to few desk-based
models and high-level data shared by technology developers with commercial interests. Consequently,
most IAMs either omit DACCS or include it without granularity on specific configurations.
Scope of Work
IEAGHG commissioned Element Energy, UK, to collate and improve current evidence on the costs of
DACCS systems and provide recommendations for the IAM community and policymakers to inform
next steps. The study consists of the following objectives:
1. Develop a high-level techno-economic model to investigate the costs of DACCS technologies

across plant scales and timeframes, as well as identifying significant uncertainties and gaps in
the literature.
2. Assess key global siting factors influencing DACCS deployment, such as energy prices and
emissions, CO2 storage and transport availability, regulatory support, land, and water
availability.
3. Derive recommendations for the IAM community on integration of DACCS into IAMs.
4. Discuss the required policy incentives in the context of current challenges and progress.
Although it is possible to combine DAC with CO2 utilisation to produce low-carbon or net-negative
products, this study primarily focusses on combination of DAC with dedicated permanent geological
storage so as to provide a common reference point for costs of negative emissions. The combination
of DAC with use of the CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is also excluded from the analysis.
ii
Findings of the Study
Methods and Approach

To better investigate the current and future DACCS costs under different settings and conditions, a
high-level techno-economic model was developed, which calculates the levelised cost of DACCS
(LCOD) of each plant configuration, assuming a base plant capacity of 1 MtCO2/year captured. Both
liquid solvent and solid sorbent technologies are investigated as FOAK plants commissioning in mid-
2020s and long-term NOAK plants, assumed to be in the 2050s. A further distinction is made between
plants using pure electricity and hybrid plants requiring both electricity and heat inputs. Lastly, gross
LCODs ($/tCO2 captured) calculated in the model are converted to net LCODs ($/tCO2 net removed)
by accounting for some of the lifecycle emissions made throughout the DACCS supply chain.
This study uses 2050 as the base year for NOAK calculations, however, this does not imply that
NOAK stage is likely to be reached only by 2050. Reaching NOAK status depends on deployment
rates of individual technologies and this study does not make an assumption regarding future DACCS
deployment. Here, NOAK roughly coincides to 5-7 doublings of initial large-scale production
capacity and depending on future support for DACCS, NOAK stage may be reached by as early as
2035.
Key TEA Findings
Current • Early DACCS projects in the 2020s are likely to range from ~$400-$700/net-tCO2
Performance stored (when global average solar PV costs are used) depending primarily on scale
and type of technology.
• Costs drop to ~$350-$550/net-tCO2 stored with low-cost renewables, therefore
early plants are likely to be situated where renewable electricity is most affordable.
Liquid DACCS plants get significantly more cost-effective with increasing size due
to economies of scale. Solid DACCS costs scale more linearly with size and are
likely to be the more cost-effective option for smaller plants (<100ktCO2/year).
Key Cost • Liquid DACCS costs are most sensitive to upfront capital investment (Capex) and
Influences electricity prices. Due to the relatively balanced distribution of costs, most
parameters are influential on LCODs, except for consumable prices including
capture chemicals.
• Solid DACCS prices are most sensitive to adsorbent costs and future adsorbent
performance improvements are the single most important factor which will
determine cost-effectiveness of solid DACCS. Solid DACCS costs are also more
sensitive to plant lifetime and may significantly suffer if lifetime is reduced.
Cost • Significant cost reduction can be achieved in the future, with DACCS reaching
Reduction ~$194-$230/net-tCO2 for 1 MtCO2/year NOAK plants (~2050), driven by reduced
electricity prices, cost of capital and upfront capital investment. Costs are likely to
be higher for smaller plants and further cost reduction potential exists for more
ambitious renewables and adsorbent cost reduction, with solid technologies having
more room for innovation learning as they utilise more novel chemical processes.
• Liquid DACCS further benefits from overall improvements in lifecycle emissions.
Solid DACCS technologies experience further cost reduction through increases in
plant lifetimes (from 10 to 25 years) and cost-performance improvements of
adsorbents.
iii
• CO2 transport and storage costs are found to be ~6-15% of total LCODs and costs
may be reduced by $20-$25/tCO2 if plants use shared infrastructure.
• Energy costs are as much as 50% of long-term liquid DACCS costs. DACCS costs
in the range of ~$150-$200/net-tCO2 may be achieved in the long-term if very low-
cost solar energy is used.
• Long-term costs are found to be significantly higher than the industry target of
$100/tCO2 captured, except under ambitious cost-performance assumptions and
favourable conditions. These favourable conditions may come to exist but
commenting on the size of the opportunity is difficult.
Lifecycle • Emissions are primarily associated with the energy inputs (electricity and heat) and
Emissions upstream methane emissions if natural gas is used in the process. Therefore,
reducing the carbon intensity of energy sources is of paramount importance.
• The lifecycle emissions associated with DACCS range from 7-17% of the CO2
captured for FOAK plants and 3-7% for NOAK plants (if low carbon energy is
used).
Energy
Demand • Much of this data is sourced from companies developing DACCS systems. These
are largely in line with those in the literature, with the slight exception of solid
DACCS, where electricity consumption is at the higher end of the reported ranges
in the literature, and the addition of the possibility of electricity-only solid DACCS
systems. (Figures in brackets for solid DACCS are an electric-only configuration.)
Uncertainties • Since no large-scale plant is built to date, inherent uncertainties on most parameters
are high. The largest uncertainties requiring major assumptions are on capital costs,
plant scaling factors, future cost reductions through learning, and solid adsorbent
cost-performance dynamic.
A more detailed cost breakdown of several solid and liquid system configurations as well as the most
important assumptions can be found in Figure 1 and Figure 2. DACCS plants operating flexibly to
follow renewable generation may access lower-cost electricity, but overall LCODs are expected to be
higher than continuous operation. Solar and wind are intermittent energy sources, therefore operating
DACCS plants with renewables will either require energy storage, purchasing a portfolio of low-
carbon power or operating plants flexibly to match renewable generation. Reducing the operating
hours of plants is likely to be technically feasible but would increase the impact of capital costs on
LCODs. Operating plants at a 15% load factor, as opposed to 90%, would increase long-term
levelised costs of DACCS in 2050s by up to 50%, even if electricity is assumed to be free of charge.
Land and water requirements for DACCS, which depend on the source of energy and regional
climate, are not expected to be restrictive in most areas. Land occupied by DACCS plants is relatively
inconsequential, estimated to be 2,000 km2 for a total capacity of 1 GtCO2/year including space for
solar PV. This footprint is estimated to be orders of magnitude smaller than area required to remove
the same amount of CO2 by afforestation and BECCS, and may even reduce further if other power
sources, such as nuclear, are used. Similarly, water requirements are not likely to be limiting for most
regions, though they will likely influence siting choices. A total DACCS capacity of 1 GtCO2/year is
iv
calculated to consume only 0.16% of agricultural water used globally. In the worst case, supplying
water through desalination is estimated to increase LCODs by less than 5%. Moreover, some regions
with poor water supplies, such as deserts, may save costs on solar PV generation.
Public acceptance, policy, and regulatory support for DACCS and relevant enabling technologies are
often overlooked factors influencing practical feasibility of rapid scaleup. The US, Canada, the UK,
Norway, China, Japan, and Australia are countries with some of the most favourable policies
supporting CCS. Furthermore, CCS regulatory provisions are most developed in North America,
Australia, and the European Union. Considering the close link between CCS and DACCS
technologies, these regions may be the most suitable for early deployment.
Carbon capture clusters with access to shared CO2 infrastructure and low-carbon renewables/gas are
ideal sites for future DACCS plants which can reduce LCODs significantly. Electricity price is found
to be the most influential parameter for liquid DACCS costs; highly ambitious assumptions with
lower cost of capital, lower electricity price and shared CO2 infrastructure resulted in costs ~$100/net-
tCO2. For solid DACCS plants adsorbent price is the most important parameter, and very ambitious
performance improvements may cut LCODs by 25%. Under similarly highly ambitious assumptions,
including additional capital cost reduction through high learning rates, solid DACCS may reach
LCODs as low as $80/net-tCO2. (Note: the set of assumptions used for those highly ambitious cases
currently do not exist or only exist partly in select few geographic locations.)
Figure 1 LCOD for several liquid DACCS system configurations (plant utilisation = load factor, the
report has a more detailed, yet simplistic case study of flexible DACCS operation)
v
Figure 2 LCOD for several solid DACCS system configurations
Global Siting Factors

Initially it may appear as if DACCS technologies can be deployed anywhere, with key factors being
access to low carbon energy and CO2 storage resources. This study did not identify many other
constraints on overall DACCS potential. However, many other factors such as environmental
footprint, downstream CO2 processing, and legal and policy environments will likely influence
specific siting decisions. This study investigated these global siting factors qualitatively and, in some
cases, quantitatively.
Dedicated geologic storage space is not likely to restrict global DACCS potential but will influence
where DACCS can be deployed cost effectively. Sedimentary basins capable of storing CO2 over very
long periods of time are relatively well distributed around the world and all major CO2 emitting
countries are believed to have access to such storage spaces. Modest estimates calculate global storage
potential to be over three times the total greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution.
CO2 transport and storage costs can be significantly reduced by using shared infrastructure. CO2
transport and storage costs for stand-alone plants are found to be 6-15% of total LCODs but can fall to
as low as $5/tCO2 (gross) if large capacity shared infrastructure is used alongside low-cost storage
locations.
Utilisation of air captured CO2 to produce valuable commodities may complement DACCS
deployment and help reduce costs in regions where geologic storage is not available or not desired.
CO2 utilisation options may result in permanent CO2 storage (e.g. construction materials) or
displacement of fossil based products (e.g. synthetic fuels), which can be sold at higher prices than
their conventional counterparts. Deploying further DAC plants for utilisation can ultimately reduce
vi
the costs of DACCS with dedicated geologic storage through supporting early deployment and
economies of scale, especially for smaller scale plants. However, estimated future costs of air
captured CO2 are several times more than the costs of CO2 produced conventionally.
Access to low-cost energy is the most prominent factor determining the economic viability of
DACCS. In the long-term solar PV is likely to be the lowest cost electricity source globally, typically
in equatorial regions. Other countries usually have access to some combination of low-cost wind
energy, new hydropower dams, nuclear waste heat or geothermal energy. Electricity prices are found
to be more influential on liquid plants, compared to solids, due to their higher power demand.
Therefore, liquid DACCS are likely to be focussed on in regions with lowest-cost low-carbon
electricity prices. Furthermore, for most efficient operation, hybrid solid DACCS plants need to be co-
located with a source of waste heat, potentially restricting its deployment to vicinities of existing
industrial sites, nuclear or geothermal plants. Fossil fuel energy sources are not expected to result in
economically viable DACCS costs unless almost all associated emissions are captured as may be done
in hybrid liquid DACCS alternatives.
Inclusion of DACCS in IAMs

To date DACCS representation in IAMs has been relatively simplistic. IAMs are one of the most
influential quantitative tools with respect to global climate change mitigation analyses. Despite
seemingly large DACCS deployment potential in existing IAM-based studies, most have focused on
liquid DACCS and only one has considered solid technologies in their portfolios. Models necessarily
rely on relatively sparse and divergent literature for estimates of DACCS cost. Indeed, the literature
presents wide cost ranges from $30-$1,000/tCO2, with estimates from sources close to industry
ranging from $100-$300/tCO2.
Technical parameters compiled and developed throughout this study can be used for representation of
DACCS technologies in future IAM studies. A summary table of key techno economic DACCS
parameters emerging from this study is presented on page 48 of the report, which includes two
values for most parameters to represent typically more ambitious commercial data and more
conservative literature/academic data. IAM practitioners should consider differentiating between
DACCS technologies and considering multiple plant configurations, including those running on
electricity only and a mix of heat and electricity. Practitioners should also take care to ensure
consistent treatment of financing costs for all technologies across their models. Furthermore, operating
and labour costs are likely to be region dependent and IAMs can use reference tables to estimate
how these costs would differ between countries.
DACCS uptake in a range of models, including IAMs, is very high and not significantly limited by
uptake constraints investigated to date. Non-IAM analyses often report DACCS capacities in the
range of 10-15 GtCO2/year by the late 21st century. In contrast, IAM-based studies often produce
scenarios with even greater potentials of up to 30-40 GtCO2/year by 2100. The availability of CO2
storage, renewables, water, and land are key global siting factors which should be investigated further
in IAMs with regional granularity to determine the locations with high DACCS viability and
ultimately provide a more nuanced view of overall DACCS potential.
Current and Future DACCS Policy Support Mechanisms

Most current DACCS policy support consist of RD&D funding and financial support aimed at wider
NETs or CCS technologies. The US, the UK, the EU, Canada and Australia are key regions with
relatively developed CCS regulations and R&D and demonstration programmes targeting carbon
removal or general CCS projects. The 45Q tax credits in the US (priced at $50/tCO2 removed and
vii
currently under revision for a potential increase) and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
are the only financial mechanisms in the world available for large-scale DACCS projects at the time
of writing this report.
The following actions could help to deploy DACCS at scale (these are merely suggestions and food
for thought, and not meant to be seen as prescriptive and/or complete):
• Governments have in the past invested in R&D and demonstration funding towards CCS
projects. R&D and demonstration (R,D&D) funding towards DACCS could be expected to
also encourage R,D&D. (Specific areas could include, e.g., capture chemicals, scaling up
systems, supporting front end engineering and design (FEED) studies and knowledge sharing
networks).
• Financial support to reduce the burden of high Capex. This has demonstrated benefits in
encouraging other technology demonstrations. (Specific instruments could include, e.g.,
tradable tax credits, low interest loans or loan guarantees, private activity bonds, accelerated
depreciation, and direct equity investment.)
• Financial mechanisms to provide revenues for CO2 removal. (E.g., establishing a negative
emissions trading scheme, clean energy standards, tradable tax credits, direct procurement, or
contract for differences.)
• Supporting and accelerating permitting for DACCS projects and infrastructure could help
with reducing development timeframes and costs.
• Developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks for CO2 accounting, including
measurement, monitoring, and verification (MRV) standards. Also, having strong governance
and international cooperation especially for developing CO2 MRV standards and cross-border
CO2 T&S infrastructure.
• Continued support and data sharing on CO2 storage site appraisal.
• Incentivising CO2 utilisation with DAC by developing markets for CO2-based products (e.g.
through procurement programmes and development/maintenance of public product databases)
might help establish early commercial opportunities. Care needs to be taken regarding the
permanence of the desired CO2 utilisation pathways.
• Considering, whether separating national targets for CO2 mitigation and removal is
practicable.
• Prioritising public engagement and social considerations to improve DACCS perception and
knowledge among many stakeholders.
Expert Review Comments
7 reviewers from industry, academia and other organisations took part in the expert review process of
this study. The majority of the comments were minor, requiring simple responses, clarifications
and/or additions. The more substantive comments included:
• Emissions from CO2 transport and storage should be included in the analysis. → Literature
research early in the project revealed a significant lack of data in this area, thus it could not be
included. This was made clearer in the methodology section and was added to the
recommendations for further work.
• Several reviewers suggested to add costs for CCS, BECCS, and hard to abate sector
mitigation technologies to enable a comparison with the DACCS costs. → BECCS costs were
already given in the main body of the report. A representative range (min/max values) of
viii
costs for CCS was added for informative purposes, however, a direct comparison of CCS and
DACCS costs is not very helpful, as (fossil) CCS does not provide negative emissions.
• Adding further sensitivities to the tornado graphs, including plant lifetime and scaling factors
→ Plant lifetime sensitivity was added. Scaling factor sensitivity was not added, as this is not
an inherent property of the technology and both investigated DACCS technologies (solid and
liquid) use different scaling methods. This justification was added to the report.
• There were multiple comments around water consumption, asking for further detail regarding:
mechanism of water generation and the relationship between time, temperature and humidity.
→ Ranges quoted in the literature on water use were already present in the report. The
contractor did not feel able to provide additional comments or conclusions, as there is a
significant lack of data on water use and mechanism for DACCS plants. In general, it is
thought that compared to the counterfactual, water use in DACCS plants will likely not be a
major limitation. The lack of data in this area was added to the recommendations for further
work.
• The choice of naming 2050 costs as NOAK was perceived as problematic → NOAK costs
presented in the study are meant to represent 5-7 doublings of capacity and do not mean that
they can only be reached at a certain point in time, i.e. 2050. Thus, explicit references to 2050
were removed and it is now stated that NOAK might be reached as early as 2035 if conditions
are favourable.
• The assumed solid DACCS plant lifetime increase from 10 to 25 years might be too
optimistic. → Added some discussion around the uncertainties in solid DACCS lifetime, also
(as mentioned under the third bullet point) sensitivity analysis now includes plant lifetime.
Conclusions
This study improves the current DACCS cost-performance evidence base by synthesising data from
the recent literature and technology developers to explore the economic feasibility of different
DACCS technologies across timescales, capacities, configurations, and numerous global siting
factors. It shows that although DACCS is more expensive than many carbon mitigation and removal
options, careful plant siting and rapid learnings can achieve significantly more competitive DACCS
costs.
Compared to other NETs, DACCS has some advantages due to its smaller land footprint and water
consumption, as well as potential for easy scalability. NETs relying on biomass and ecosystems, such
as afforestation, soil carbon storage and BECCS, require significant water and arable land. Other
chemical NETs, such as enhanced weathering, risk changing the chemistry of oceans and rivers.
DACCS avoids many of these limitations as it has a comparatively small land footprint, but does
require a sustainable energy source, geological CO2 storage to operate, and is relatively immature
technology with as-yet unproven deployment potential.
The technoeconomic modelling of base case DACCS configurations showed that the lifecycle
emissions associated with DACCS range from 7-17% of the CO2 captured for FOAK plants and 3-7%
for NOAK plants if low carbon energy is used. These are mostly associated with energy carbon
intensities, underlining the importance of access to low-carbon energy. Early DACCS projects in the
2020s are likely to range from ~$400-$700/net-tCO2 stored when global average solar PV costs are
used, which drop to ~$350-$550/net-tCO2 with low-cost renewables. LCODs for NOAK plants in the
2050s fall to ~$194-$230/net-tCO2 due to reduced electricity prices, financing costs and upfront
capital investment. For liquid systems, large-scale plants are significantly more cost-effective due to
ix
economies of scale. Solid DACCS costs scale more linearly with size and are likely to be the more
cost-effective option for smaller plants (<100ktCO2/year), with significant potential for cost reduction
through innovation. Capex, electricity prices and solid adsorbent costs are found to be the most
influential parameters on costs.
An exploration of key global siting factors on DACCS costs and viability reveals that access to CO 2
storage, land and water requirements are not expected to limit global DACCS potential but may
determine where plants are built. CO2 transport and storage costs are found to be ~6-15% of total
LCODs which may be reduced by $20-$25/tCO2 if plants use shared infrastructure. Energy costs are
found to be as much as 50% of long-term liquid DACCS costs. DACCS costs in the range of ~$150-
$200/net-tCO2 may be achieved in the long-term if very low-cost solar energy is used. However, long-
term costs are likely to be significantly higher than the industry target of $100/tCO 2 captured, except
under the most ambitious cost-performance assumptions and favourable conditions. The best regions
for DACCS will have access to excess low-cost and low-carbon power and heat. These regions also
have CO2 storage resources, have strong commitments to reducing their emissions and have
regulatory/policy support for DACCS, CCS and NETs. In the short-medium term, some ideal
locations for DACCS may be parts of North America, Western Europe (North Sea), Australia, Middle
East and Eastern China, and Japan (although Japan does not have plentiful low carbon electricity
sources, some potential for low carbon geothermal heat was identified).
To date DACCS representation in IAMs has been relatively simplistic. Despite seemingly large
DACCS deployment potential in existing IAM-based studies, most have focused only on liquid
DACCS. Models necessarily rely on relatively sparse and divergent literature for estimates of DACCS
cost. Technical parameters compiled and developed throughout this study can be used for
representation of DACCS technologies in future IAM studies. IAM practitioners should consider
differentiating between DACCS technologies and considering multiple plant configurations, including
those running on electricity only and a mix of heat and electricity. Practitioners should also take care
to ensure consistent treatment of financing costs for all technologies across their models. Furthermore,
operating and labour costs are likely to be region dependent and IAMs can use reference tables to
estimate how these costs would differ between countries. The availability of CO2 storage, renewables,
water, and land are key global siting factors which should be investigated further in IAM
parameterisation with regional granularity to determine the locations with high DACCS viability and
ultimately provide a more nuanced view of overall DACCS potential. Lastly, IAM studies may want
to better integrate emerging climate policies, such as separate targets for emissions reduction and
negative emissions, by developing alternative scenario designs placing constraints on the ability of
NETs to accommodate short term GHG overshoots.
Most current DACCS policy support consists of generic RD&D funding, and financial support aimed
at wider NETs or CCS technologies. The US, UK, EU, Canada and Australia are key regions with
relatively developed CCS regulations and R&D and demonstration programmes targeting carbon
removal or general CCS projects. The 45Q tax credits in the US and California’s LCFS are the only
financial mechanisms available for large-scale DACCS projects. The key policy priorities of
governments wishing to accelerate DACCS deployment in the future should be providing further
dedicated R,D&D funding, developing financial incentives which represent fair value of achieving
negative emissions, and establishing regulatory frameworks to enable large-scale roll-out DACCS and
supporting technologies.
x
Recommendations
This study shows that current DACCS costs are higher than almost all other point source CCS
applications and some sustainable aviation fuels. However, future learning potential, careful siting of
large-scale plants, and continued and improved policy support can significantly reduce DACCS costs.
To further assess the role and potential of DACCS as part of a portfolio of decarbonisation strategies,
the following future work is recommended:
▪ Further independent engineering analysis of DACCS performance and costs to verify and
support commercial data, especially as the technology matures.
▪ Expansion of the LCA study to include the impact of non-carbon by-products of
solvent/sorbent manufacture and energy requirements for mass production of capture
chemicals.
▪ Demonstrations of a range of DACCS technologies and configurations at scale to provide
real-world data.
▪ Detailed review of geographical locations and differences, including costs of external factors
as well as siting influence on technical requirements (e.g., water consumption), combined
with further research on overall spatial mapping of DACCS potential, cognisant of access to
renewables, CO2 storage, and water and land requirements (especially indirect land footprint
from renewables) to refine potential uptake estimates in IAMs.
▪ R&D on solid sorbents and electric calciners to improve performance and drive down costs.
▪ Continued R&D on novel DACCS concepts currently at low maturity levels.
▪ Exploration of value and technical feasibility of flexible DACCS systems, including pilots
and wider energy system analysis.
▪ Better estimates of the potential for roll-out rates of DACCS systems, considering limitations
around construction, chemical production, CO2 storage site development and renewables
deployment rates.
▪ Knowledge sharing and collaboration between academia, technology developers and third-
party assessors to make information accessible and accelerate progress.
xi
Global Assessment of
Direct Air Capture Costs
For IEAGHG
Element Energy
August 2021
1
Element Energy Limited, Suite 1, Bishop Bateman Court, Thompson’s Lane, Cambridge, CB5 8AQ, Tel: +44 (0)1223 852499
Assessment of Global Direct Air Capture Costs
Final Report
Authors
This study was led by Element Energy.
Element Energy is a strategic energy consultancy, specialising in the intelligent analysis of low carbon
energy. The team of over 80 specialists provides consultancy services across a wide range of sectors,
including the built environment, carbon capture and storage, industrial decarbonisation, smart electricity
and gas networks, energy storage, renewable energy systems and low carbon transport. Element Energy
provides insights on both technical and strategic issues, believing that the technical and engineering
understanding of the real-world challenges support the strategic work.
For comments or queries please contact: CCUSindustry@element-energy.co.uk or
Yorukcan.Erbay@element-energy.co.uk
Study authors
Yorukcan Erbay
Antonia Mattos
Supporting authors:
Richard Simon (Element Energy)
Dr Adam Hawkes (Imperial College London ICON) – led the part of this
study regarding Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs).
Element Energy would like to extent its special thanks to Jasmin Kemper (IEAGHG) for her direction and
help throughout this study.
License-free cover picture sourced from: Pixabay.com
Disclaimer
This study was commissioned by IEAGHG. The conclusions and recommendations do not necessarily
represent the view of IEAGHG. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this report,
neither IEAGHG nor Element Energy warrant its accuracy or will, regardless of its or their negligence,
assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made of this report which liability is hereby
excluded.
i
Final Report
Executive Summary
Background and project objectives
Negative emissions technologies (NETs) are essential for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations and achieving global temperature targets. NETs, including direct air carbon capture
and storage (DACCS), can be used to offset emissions from industries that are very difficult to abate, such
as aviation, thereby decoupling decarbonisations efforts from the source of emissions. Analyses by
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) presented in IPCC reports show that 87% of all IAM scenarios
consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 2⁰C and 100% of IAM scenarios limiting temperature rise
to 1.5⁰C require large-scale NETs (1.3 to 29 GtCO2/year) to be deployed in the second half of this century1.
DACCS has some advantages over other NETs due to its smaller land and water footprint, as well
as potential for easy scalability. NETs interacting with biomass, such as afforestation, soil carbon storage
and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), require significant water and arable land2. Other
chemical NETs, such as enhanced weathering, risk changing the chemistry of oceans and rivers3. DACCS
avoids many of these limitations as it has a comparatively small land footprint, but does require a
sustainable energy source, geological CO2 storage to operate and is relatively immature technology with
as-yet unproven deployment potential. Furthermore, the varying levels of modularity of DACCS systems
imply potential for easy scaling up and rapid deployment.
Current information on DACCS costs, performance, and impact of plant siting have several data
gaps and significant uncertainties. Despite the climate relevance of DACCS technologies, current
capture capacities are only at ktCO2/year levels. Therefore, literature on DACCS is limited to few desk-
based models and high-level data shared by technology developers with commercial interests.
Consequently, most IAMs either omit DACCS or include it without granularity on specific configurations.
This study aims to collate and improve current evidence on the costs of DACCS systems and
provide recommendations for the IAM community and policymakers to inform next steps. The study
consists of the following objectives:
– Develop a high-level techno-economic model to investigate the costs of DACCS technologies
across plant scales and timeframes, as well as identifying significant uncertainties and gaps in the
literature.
– Assess key global siting factors influencing DACCS deployment, such as energy prices and
emissions, CO2 storage and transport availability, regulatory support, land, and water availability.
– Derive recommendations for the IAM community on integration of DACCS into IAMs.
– Discuss the required policy incentives in the context of current challenges and progress.
Please note that although it is possible to combine DAC with CO2 utilisation to produce low-carbon or net-
negative products, this study primarily focusses on combination of DAC with permanent storage so as to
provide a common reference point for costs of negative emissions.
Short and long term DACCS costs

To better investigate the current and future DACCS costs under different settings and conditions, a high-
level techno-economic model was developed, which calculates the levelised cost of DACCS (LCOD)4 of
each plant configuration, assuming a base plant capacity of 1 MtCO2/year captured. Both liquid solvent and
solid sorbent technologies5 are investigated as first-of-a-kind (FOAK) plants commissioning in mid-2020s
1 IPCC, 2018- Link

2 Smith, P., et al., 2016- Link
3 Kohler, P., et al., 2010- Link
4 LCOD, expressed in $/tCO , is calculated by dividing the lifetime costs of a DACCS plant to the total amount of CO
2 2
it removes over its lifetime, discounted to present day. It is a common metric used to compare projects of different
sizes, lifetimes, technologies, etc. Full methodology and assumptions are provided in section 0 and the appendix.
5 In general, liquid technologies use relatively mature and centralised chemical processes requiring reaching very high
temperatures (~900⁰C). Solids use more novel processes with more modular designs capable of utilising waste heat at
lower temperatures (80⁰C -120⁰C).
ii
Final Report
and long-term Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) plants, assumed to be in the 2050s. A further distinction is made
between plants using pure electricity and hybrid plants requiring both electricity and heat inputs. Lastly,
gross LCODs ($/tCO2 captured) calculated in the model are converted to net LCODs ($/tCO2 net removed)
by accounting for some of the lifecycle emissions made throughout the DACCS supply chain.
This study uses 2050 as the base year for NOAK calculations, however, this does not imply that NOAK
stage is likely to be reached only by 2050. Reaching NOAK status depends on deployment rates of
individual technologies and this study does not make an assumption regarding future DACCS deployment.
Here, NOAK roughly coincides to 5-7 doublings of initial large-scale production capacity and depending on
future support for DACCS, NOAK stage may be reached by as early as 2035.
Below are the key findings from the techno-economic analysis, which can also be seen in Figure 1:
• Early DACCS projects in the 2020s are likely to range from ~$400-$700/net-tCO2
stored (when global average solar PV costs are used) depending primarily on scale
Current and type of technology.
Performance • Costs drop to ~$350-$550/net-tCO2 stored6 with low-cost renewables, therefore
early plants are likely to be situated where renewable electricity is most affordable.
Liquid DACCS plants get significantly more cost-effective with increasing size due to
economies of scale. Solid DACCS costs scale more linearly with size and are likely
to be the more cost-effective option for smaller plants (<100ktCO2/year).
• Liquid DACCS costs are most sensitive to upfront capital investment (Capex)
and electricity prices. Due to the relatively balanced distribution of costs, most
Key Cost parameters are influential on LCODs, except for consumable prices including
Influences capture chemicals.
• Solid DACCS prices are most sensitive to adsorbent costs and future adsorbent
performance improvements are the single most important factor which will determine
cost-effectiveness of solid DACCS. Solid DACCS costs are also more sensitive to
plant lifetime and may significantly suffer if lifetime is reduced.
• Significant cost reduction can be achieved in the future, with DACCS reaching
~$194-$230/net-tCO2 for 1 MtCO2/year NOAK plants (~2050), driven by reduced
electricity prices, cost of capital and upfront capital investment. Costs are likely to be
higher for smaller plants and further cost reduction potential exists for more ambitious
renewables and adsorbent cost reduction, with solid technologies having more room
for innovation learning as they utilise more novel chemical processes.
• Liquid DACCS further benefits from overall improvements in lifecycle emissions.
Cost Solid DACCS technologies experience further cost reduction through increases in
Reduction plant lifetimes (from 10 to 25 years) and cost-performance improvements of
adsorbents.
• CO2 transport and storage costs are found to be ~6-15% of total LCODs and costs
may be reduced by $20-$25/tCO2 if plants use shared infrastructure.
• Energy costs are as much as 50% of long-term liquid DACCS costs. DACCS costs
in the range of ~$150-$200/net-tCO2 may be achieved in the long-term if very low-
cost solar energy is used.
• Long-term costs are found to be significantly higher than the industry target of
$100/tCO2 captured, except under ambitious cost-performance assumptions and
favourable conditions. These favourable conditions may come to exist, but
commenting on the size of the opportunity is difficult.
6 1PointFive and Occidental are developing a 1 MtCO2/year plant using Carbon Engineering’s technology. It is expected
to be financed by revenues from the 45Q tax credits+ California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standards + CO2 sales, totalling
~$250-$300/tCO2. Carbon Engineering suggest that this model is replicable in the region- Link
iii
Final Report
• Emissions are primarily associated with the energy inputs (electricity and heat) and
Lifecycle upstream methane emissions if natural gas is used in the process. Therefore,
Emissions reducing the carbon intensity of energy sources is of paramount importance.
• The lifecycle emissions associated with DACCS range from 7-17% of the CO2
captured for FOAK plants and 3-7% for NOAK plants (if low carbon energy is
used).
Uncertainties • Since no large-scale plant is built to date, inherent uncertainties on most

parameters are high. The largest uncertainties requiring major assumptions are on
capital costs, plant scaling factors, future cost reductions through learning, and solid
adsorbent cost-performance dynamic.
Global siting factors for DACCS deployment

Initially it may appear as if DACCS technologies can be deployed anywhere, with key factors being access
to low carbon energy and CO2 storage resources. This study did not identify many other constraints on
overall DACCS potential. However, many other factors such as environmental footprint, downstream CO2
processing, and legal and policy environments will likely influence specific siting decisions. This study
investigated these global siting factors qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively.
Dedicated geologic storage space is not likely to restrict global DACCS potential but will influence
where DACCS can be deployed cost effectively. Sedimentary basins capable of storing CO2 over very
long periods of time are relatively well distributed around the world and all major CO2 emitting countries are
believed to have access to such storage spaces. Modest estimates calculate global storage potential to be
over three times the total greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
CO2 transport and storage costs can be significantly reduced by using shared infrastructure. CO2
transport and storage costs for stand-alone plants are found to be 6-15% of total LCODs but can fall to as
low as $5/tCO2 (gross) if large capacity shared infrastructure is used alongside low-cost storage locations.
Utilisation of air captured CO2 to produce valuable commodities may complement DACCS
deployment and help reduce costs in regions where geologic storage is not available or not desired.
CO2 utilisation options may result in permanent CO2 storage (e.g. construction materials) or displacement
of fossil based products (e.g. synthetic fuels), which can be sold at higher prices than their conventional
counterparts. Deploying further DAC plants for utilisation can ultimately reduce the costs of DACCS with
dedicated geologic storage through supporting early deployment and economies of scale, especially for
smaller scale plants. However, estimated future costs of air captured CO2 are several times more than the
costs of CO2 produced conventionally.
Access to low-cost energy is the most prominent factor determining the economic viability of
DACCS. In the long-term solar PV is likely to be the lowest cost electricity source globally, typically in
equatorial regions. Other countries usually have access to some combination of low-cost wind energy, new
hydropower dams, nuclear waste heat or geothermal energy. Electricity prices are found to be more
influential on liquid plants, compared to solids, due to their higher power demand. Therefore, liquid DACCS
are likely to be focussed on in regions with lowest-cost low-carbon electricity prices. Furthermore, for most
efficient operation, hybrid solid DACCS plants need to be co-located with a source of waste heat, potentially
restricting its deployment to vicinities of existing industrial sites, nuclear or geothermal plants. Fossil fuel
energy sources are not expected to result in economically viable DACCS costs unless almost all associated
emissions are captured as may be done in hybrid liquid DACCS alternatives.
iv
Final Report
________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: Charts and tables showing technical parameters describing key liquid and solid DACCS
cases and breakdown of associated gross and net costs. Base cases showing long-term electric
plant parameters are highlighted. Parameters which are same as the base case are faded. Please
see page 32 for more information on definition of these cases.
v
Final Report
DACCS plants operating flexibly to follow renewable generation may access lower-cost electricity,
but overall LCODs are expected to be higher than continuous operation. Solar and wind are
intermittent energy sources, therefore operating DACCS plants with renewables will either require energy
storage, purchasing a portfolio of low-carbon power or operating plants flexibly to match renewable
generation. Reducing the operating hours of plants is likely to be technically feasible but would increase
the impact of capital costs on LCODs. Operating plants at a 15% load factor, as opposed to 90%, would
increase long-term levelised costs of DACCS in 2050s by up to 50%, even if electricity is assumed to be
free of charge.
Land and water requirements for DACCS, which depend on the source of energy and regional
climate, are not expected to be restrictive in most areas. Land occupied by DACCS plants is relatively
inconsequential, estimated to be 2,000 km2 for a total capacity of 1 GtCO2/year including space for solar
PV7. This footprint is estimated to be orders of magnitude smaller than area required to remove the same
amount of CO2 by afforestation and BECCS, and may even reduce further if other power sources, such as
nuclear, are used. Similarly, water requirements are not likely to be limiting for most regions, though they
will likely influence siting choices. A total DACCS capacity of 1 GtCO2/year is calculated to consume only
0.16% of agricultural water used globally. In the worst case, supplying water through desalination is
estimated to increase LCODs by less than 5%. Moreover, some regions with poor water supplies, such as
deserts, may save costs on solar PV generation.
Public acceptance, policy, and regulatory support for DACCS and relevant enabling technologies
are often overlooked factors influencing practical feasibility of rapid scaleup. The US, Canada, the
UK, Norway, China, Japan, and Australia are countries with some of the most favourable policies supporting
carbon capture and storage (CCS). Furthermore, CCS regulatory provisions are most developed in North
America, Australia, and the European Union. Considering the close link between CCS and DACCS
technologies, these regions may be the most suitable for early deployment.
Carbon capture clusters with access to shared CO2 infrastructure and low-carbon renewables/gas
are ideal sites for future DACCS plants which can reduce LCODs significantly. Electricity price is
found to be the most influential parameter for liquid DACCS costs; the most ideal settings with lower cost
of capital, lower electricity price and shared CO2 infrastructure resulted in costs ~$100/net-tCO2. For solid
DACCS plants adsorbent price is the most important parameter, and ambitious performance improvements
may cut LCODs by 25%. Under similarly ambitious assumptions, including additional capital cost reduction
through high learning rates, solid DACCS may reach LCODs as low as $80/net-tCO2.
Inclusion of DACCS in IAMs

To date DACCS representation in IAMs has been relatively simplistic. IAMs are one of the most
influential quantitative tools with respect to global climate change mitigation analyses. Despite seemingly
large DACCS deployment potential in existing IAM-based studies, most have focused on liquid DACCS
and only one has considered solid technologies in their portfolios8. Models necessarily rely on relatively
sparse and divergent literature for estimates of DACCS cost. Indeed, the literature presents wide cost
ranges from $30-$1000/tCO2, with estimates from sources close to industry ranging from $100-$300/tCO2.
Technical parameters compiled and developed throughout this study can be used for
representation of DACCS technologies in future IAM studies. A summary table of key techno economic
DACCS parameters emerging from this study is presented on page 44, which includes two values for most
parameters to represent typically more ambitious commercial data and more conservative
literature/academic data. IAM practitioners should consider differentiating between DACCS technologies
and considering multiple plant configurations, including those running on electricity only and a mix of heat
and electricity. Practitioners should also take care to ensure consistent treatment of financing costs for all
7 The role of direct air capture in mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. C. Beuttler, et al., 2019.
8 An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Realmonte, G., et al., 2019.
vi
Final Report
technologies across their models. Furthermore, operating and labour costs are likely to be region
dependent and IAMs can use reference tables to estimate how these costs would differ between countries.
DACCS uptake in a range of models, including IAMs, is very high and and not significantly limited
by uptake constraints investigated to date. Non-IAM analyses often report DACCS capacities in the
range of 10-15 GtCO2/year by the late century. In contrast, IAM-based studies often produce scenarios with
even greater potentials of up to 30-40 GtCO2/year by 2100. The availability of CO2 storage, renewables,
water, and land are key global siting factors which should be investigated further in IAMs with regional
granularity to determine the locations with high DACCS viability and ultimately provide a more nuanced
view of overall DACCS potential.
Current and future DACCS policy support mechanisms

Most current DACCS policy support consist of RD&D funding and financial support aimed at wider
NETs or carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. The US, the UK, the EU, and Australia are
key regions with relatively developed CCS regulations and R&D and demonstration programmes targeting
carbon removal or general CCS projects. The 45Q tax credits in the US (priced at $50/tCO2 removed and
currently under revision for a potential increase) and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standards are the only
financial mechanisms in the world available for large-scale DACCS projects at the time of writing this report.
Additional supporting policies include consideration of DACCS in national decarbonisation roadmaps (e.g.
the UK), ongoing development of robust negative emissions accounting frameworks in the EU and
establishment of a Carbon Removal Program and a Carbon Dioxide Removal Taskforce in the US.
Governments may implement a range of different policies and actions if they aim to deploy DACCS at scale:
• Increasing R&D and demonstration funding earmarked for DACCS technologies and related
value chain components, with particular emphasis on improving capture chemicals, scaling up
systems, supporting FEED studies and knowledge sharing networks.
• Financial support to reduce the burden of high Capex, such as tradable tax credits, low interest
loans or loan guarantees, private activity bonds, accelerated depreciation, and direct equity
investment.
• Financial mechanisms to provide revenues for CO2 removal, including establishing a negative
emissions trading scheme, clean energy standards, tradable tax credits, direct procurement, or
contract for differences.
• Supporting and accelerating permitting for DACCS projects and infrastructure (including CO2
storage, renewable generation, and electricity infrastructure) to reduce development timeframes and
costs.
• Developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks for CO2 accounting, including measurement,
monitoring, and verification standards.
• Incentivising CO2 utilisation with DAC by developing markets for CO2-based products through
procurement programmes and development/maintenance of public product databases.
• Separating national targets for CO2 mitigation and removal.
• Continued support and data sharing on CO2 storage site appraisal.
• Prioritising public engagement and social considerations to improve DACCS perception and
knowledge among many stakeholders.
• Having strong governance and international cooperation especially for developing CO2
measurement, monitoring and verification standards and cross-border CO2 T&S infrastructure.
vii
Final Report
Recommendations for further work

This study shows that current DACCS costs are higher than almost all other point source CCS applications
(ranging from $50/tCO2 for capture from steel plants to $180/tCO2 for aluminium plants9) and some
sustainable aviation fuels (virtually all options costing10 higher than $300/tCO2). However, future learning
potential, careful siting of large-scale plants, and continued and improved policy support can significantly
reduce DACCS costs.
To further assess the role and potential of DACCS as part of a portfolio of decarbonisation strategies, the
following future work is recommended:
- Further independent engineering analysis of DACCS performance and costs to verify and
support commercial data, especially as the technology matures.
- Expansion of the LCA study to include potential leakage from CO2 T&S infrastructure, the impact
of non-carbon by-products of solvent/sorbent manufacture and energy requirements for mass
production of capture chemicals.
- Demonstrations of a range of DACCS technologies and configurations at scale to provide real-
world data.
- Detailed review of geographical locations and differences, including costs of external factors
as well as siting influence on technical requirements (e.g., water consumption), combined with
further research on overall spatial mapping of DACCS potential, cognisant of access to
renewables, CO2 storage, and water and land requirements to refine potential uptake estimates in
IAMs.
- R&D on solid sorbents and electric calciners to improve performance and drive down costs.
- Continued R&D on novel DACCS concepts currently at low maturity levels.
- Exploration of value and technical feasibility of flexible DACCS systems, including pilots and
wider energy system analysis.
- Better estimates of the potential for roll-out rates of DACCS systems, considering limitations
around construction, chemical production, CO2 storage site development and renewables
deployment rates.
- Knowledge sharing and collaboration between academia, technology developers and third-party
assessors to make information accessible and accelerate progress.
9Technology readiness and costs of CCS. GCCSI, 2021.

10 Levelised cost of carbon abatement: an improved cost-assessment methodology for a net-zero emissions world.
Friedmann J., et al., 2020.
viii
Final Report
Acknowledgements
Element Energy would like to extent its special thanks to Jasmin Kemper (IEAGHG) for her direction and
help throughout this study. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge the following people for their input
during early stakeholder engagement interviews and/or feedback as external reviewers:
Name Organisation
Christoph Beuttler Climeworks
Carlos Haertel Climeworks
Amy Ruddock Carbon Engineering
Gareth Hughes Carbon Engineering
John Bruce Carbon Engineering
Navjot Sandhu Carbon Engineering
George Wolff Global Thermostat
Lynn Brickett US DOE
Jose Benitez US DOE
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory -
Jay Fuhrman
PNNL
Ajay Gambhir Imperial College
Lucia Simonelli Carbon 180
Gonzalo Guillen
NEGEM project, ETH Zurich
Gosalbez
Nixon Sunny NEGEM project , Imperial
Carbon Removal Centre, Foresight
Richard Heap
Transitions
Silvia Patricia Carbon Removal Centre
Neil Grant Imperial College
Keywan Raihi IIASA
Benjamin Mitterrutzner IIASA
Wisconsin–Madison's La Follette School
Gregory Nemet
of Public Affairs
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at
Benjamin Sovacool
the University of Sussex Business School
ix
Final Report
Contents
Authors ...................................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. ix
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. xi
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Study aims, objectives and report structure ................................................................................2
2. Current status of DACCS and comparison to other NETs ...............................................................3
2.1 DAC technology overview ...........................................................................................................3
2.2 DACCS technical maturity and current capacities ......................................................................4
2.3 DACCS literature and cost projections ........................................................................................5
2.4 DACCS in comparison to other NETs .........................................................................................6
3. Techno-economic analysis ...............................................................................................................9
3.1 Methodology for TEA ...................................................................................................................9
3.2 Short and long term DACCS costs and LCA emissions............................................................12
3.3 Sensitivity analysis ....................................................................................................................16
3.4 Data availability and uncertainties .............................................................................................19
3.5 Summary of key messages .......................................................................................................20
4. Global DACCS siting considerations ..............................................................................................21
4.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................21
4.2 CO2 transport and storage.........................................................................................................21
4.3 Energy prices and availability ....................................................................................................26
4.4 Water and land requirements ....................................................................................................30
4.5 Regulatory, policy and social factors .........................................................................................31
4.6 Low hanging fruits and favourable DACCS cases ....................................................................32
4.7 Summary of global siting factors ...............................................................................................35
5. Inclusion of DACCS in IAMs and recommendations for the modelling community........................36
5.1 Techno-economic parameters for DACCS ................................................................................37
5.2 Estimates of DAC potential and uptake constraints ..................................................................42
5.3 Policy implications for IAMs .......................................................................................................43
5.4 Overall summary of DACCS parameters for IAM modelling .....................................................44
6. Global policy review & suggestions to support DACCS deployment .............................................45
6.1 Key barriers, risks, and limitations for DACCS deployment ......................................................45
6.2 Review of current policy support and future policy recommendations ......................................47
7. Conclusion and recommendations for further work ........................................................................55
7.1 Key implications and conclusions ..............................................................................................55
7.2 Recommendations for further work ...........................................................................................56
8. References .....................................................................................................................................57
9. Appendix .........................................................................................................................................61
9.1 Appendix 1: Liquid and solid DACCS technoeconomic parameters .........................................61
9.2 Appendix 2: Energy price and emissions assumptions .............................................................63
9.3 Appendix 3: CO2 transport and storage cost assumptions .......................................................67
9.4 Appendix 4: Parameters used for base case analysis ..............................................................68
9.5 Appendix 5: Technoeconomic DACCS data collected from literature .......................................69
x
Final Report
Acronyms
Bioenergy with carbon Lifecycle

BECCS LCA
capture and storage analysis/assessment
Capex Capital expenditure LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Carbon capture (utilisation
CC(U)S LCOD Levelised cost of DACCS
and) storage
CDR Carbon dioxide removal LCOE Levelised cost of electricity
CE Carbon Engineering LF Load factor
CfD Contract for difference LHV Lower heating value

Measurement, monitoring
CH4 Methane MMV
and verification
CO2 Mega tonnes of CO2
Carbon dioxide MtCO2e/year
equivalent per year
CRF Capital recovery factor Negative emissions
NETs
technologies
CSP Concentrated solar power NG Natural gas
Direct air (carbon) capture
DAC(CS) NOAK Nth-of-a-kind
(and storage)
EOR Enhanced oil recovery Opex Operational expenditure
ETS Emissions trading scheme RAB Regulated asset base
EU European Union R&D Research and development

Front End Engineering
FEED R&I Research and innovation
Design
Techno-economic
FEL Front end loading TEA
analysis/assessment
FOAK First-of-a-kind T&S Transport and storage
GCCSI Global CCS Institute TRL Technology readiness level
GGR Greenhouse gas removal United States Department

US DOE
of Energy
HHV Higher heating value VALCOE Value-added LCOE
Integrated assessment Weighted average cost of
IAM WACC
model capital
International Energy
IEA
Agency
xi
Final Report
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Negative emissions technologies (NETs) are essential for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations and achieving global temperature targets. NETs can be used to offset emissions from
industries that are very difficult to abate, such as aviation, thereby decoupling decarbonisations efforts from
the source of emissions. Analysis by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) presented in IPCC reports
show that 87% of all IAM scenarios consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 2⁰C and 100% of IAM
scenarios limiting temperature rise to 1.5⁰C require large-scale NETs to be deployed in the second half of
this century11.
The total capacities of NETs deployed in climate models show considerable variation. For example,
extensive review of published IAM studies reveal that scenarios consistent with the 1.5⁰C target have NETs
capacities in the range of 1.3 to 29 GtCO2/year, most falling between 5 and 15 GtCO2/year12 in the second
half of the century. These models usually calculate economically feasible capacities where alternative
emissions mitigation methods would be more expensive. A recent study13 adopts a bottom-up approach to
estimate the hard-to-abate emissions based on environmental justice and technical restrictions (as opposed
to economic considerations), arriving at carbon removal requirements of 1.5 to 3.1 GtCO2/year by 2100.
Lastly, as shown in Figure 2 below, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero scenario14 estimates
a ramp up carbon removal to 1.9 GtCO2/year in 2050 to offset all remaining emissions.
Figure 2: Global sectoral net CO2 emissions and negative emissions required to reach net-zero in
IEA’s Net Zero Emissions Scenario (IEA Net Zero by 2050, 2021)14
Direct air capture (DAC) refers to technologies which separate and isolate CO2 from dilute sources, such
as the atmosphere. DAC can be coupled with carbon utilisation to produce low carbon products or can
permanently store the captured CO2 in underground geological formations (called direct air carbon capture
and storage- DACCS) to generate negative emissions. DACCS is mostly perceived to have less restrictions
for global siting and deployment than other NETs, as it may not compete for agricultural land and scarce
bioresources. This has led some climate scenarios to include very high levels of DACCS deployment,
whereas some other studies approach DACCS with caution. Fuss et al. (2018) estimates12 a DACCS
deployment potential of 0.5-5 GtCO2/year by 2050. On the other hand, the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions
Scenario includes 985 MtCO2/year of DAC in 2050, 630 MtCO2/year of which is DACCS specifically.
11 IPCC Special Report Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable
Development. 2018.
12 Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Fuss et al., 2018.
13 CDR Primer. J. Wilcox, B. Kolosz, & J. Freeman, 2021.
14 Net zero by 2050: a roadmap for the global energy sector. IEA, 2021.
1
Final Report
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are one of the most influential quantitative tools with respect to global
climate change mitigation analyses, however DACCS representation in IAMs has been limited so far. For
a long time, afforestation and BECCS were seen as the only available NETs, therefore many studies are
restricted by the type of NETs they allow in their technology mix. Over the past decade studies have started
to incorporate DACCS and other options, as more information has become available. It is very unlikely that
the required levels of negative emissions can be realistically delivered by one or two types of NETs, so
there is value in better understanding and representing DACCS as part of a portfolio of solutions in future
modelling studies.
Current information on DACCS costs, performance, and the impact of plant siting contains several data
gaps and significant uncertainties. Despite the climate relevance of DACCS technologies, current capture
capacities are only at ktCO2/year levels. Therefore, literature on DACCS is limited to few desk-based
models and high-level data shared by technology developers with commercial interests, making it difficult
to accurately understand and represent the technoeconomic potential of DACCS.
1.2 Study aims, objectives and report structure

In light of the above discussion, it is clear that although DACCS appears to be a valuable technology option
for long-term global decarbonisation strategies, current data presents significant uncertainties and DACCS
representation in IAMs is very limited.
This study aims to collate and improve current evidence on costs of DACCS systems and provide
recommendations for the IAM community and policymakers to inform next steps. Specific objectives
include:
• Developing a high-level techno-economic model to investigate the costs of DACCS technologies
across plant scales and timeframes, identifying significant uncertainties and gaps in the literature.
• Assessing key global siting factors influencing DACCS deployment, such as energy prices and
emissions, CO2 storage and transport availability, regulatory support, land, and water availability.
• Deriving recommendations for the IAM community on integration of DACCS into IAMs.
• Reviewing current DACCS policy support and identifying future policy recommendations in the
context of current DACCS challenges and progress.
Throughout the study external stakeholder engagement was conducted to extract input and feedback
around methodology, data gathering and project outputs from the DACCS, modelling and wider NETs
community.
The rest of this report is structured into the following sections:
Section 2 provides an overview of the main DACCS technologies, including their status, current capacities,
deployment plans in the near future.
Section 3 presents a high-level techno-economic model and summarises emissions and costs of DACCS
technologies in the short and longer terms. It also explores the sensitivities and uncertainties of main
parameters.
Section 4 discusses the major global siting factors which influence the technical feasibility and economic
viability of DACCS deployment in different regions and suggests low hanging fruits for early projects.
Section 5 reviews current DACCS representation in IAMs and synthesises the results of the previous
sections to provide an updated set of parameters suitable for future use in IAM studies.
Section 6 summarises existing DACCS related policies/actions and presents policy recommendations to
incentivise rapid DACCS deployment.
Section 7 summarises the key conclusions and recommendations for further work.
Section 8 lists the references to the literature in alphabetical order.
Section 9 contains the appendix showing detailed assumptions, results and data acquired for this project.
2
Final Report
2. Current status of DACCS and comparison to other NETs

This section provides a brief overview of the most common DACCS technologies, current DACCS
development levels, current deployment and future plans and cost trajectories in the literature. After
summarising the features of DACCS systems, comparisons are made with other NETs to better understand
its strengths and weaknesses as well as its environmental impact in relation to alternative options.
2.1 DAC technology overview

All DAC technologies broadly operate at two stages: first CO2 is captured by some type of chemical after
coming into contact with air, then CO2 is released from this chemical and collected for processing. There
are two broad types of DAC technologies, usually called liquid absorbents and solid adsorbents (liquid and
solid DAC for short), named after the type of chemical, used to capture the CO2. Carbon Engineering, one
of the 3 main DAC technology developers, uses a liquid process, whereas Climeworks and Global
Thermostat employ solid adsorbents.
Figure 3 below illustrates the chemical processes of Carbon Engineering’s current DAC system using a
hybrid energy configuration 15. In general, liquid technologies use hydroxide solutions in air contactors to
capture CO2, which is later passed on to calcium containing chemicals and released when CaCO3 pellets
are heated with natural gas in an oxy-fired calciner. Loops regenerate chemicals and all the CO2 generated
from natural gas combustion is co-captured inherently in the process. The CO2 release process requires
heat at high temperatures (~900 ⁰C). Future optimization and evolution of this process as described section
3.2 results in the all-electric driven configurations depicted in Carbon Engineering’s longer-term models.
Most process equipment used by liquid DAC systems are well established chemical process equipment.
The front-end capture process has modular design meaning air contactors are made up of smaller repeating
units allowing for mass production. The CO2 release processes are more central and rely on economies of
scale where higher capacity plants experience significant cost reduction.
The process requires some make-up of capture chemicals (hydroxide solution and CaCO3), on-site oxygen
production and water.
Figure 3: Summary of Carbon Engineering’s DAC process using recirculating liquid absorbent with
thermal calcination15
There are more technology developers working on solid DAC systems, leading to a range of technology
designs. This section summarises the key general features of solid technologies along with an illustration
of Climeworks’ unit design16 in Figure 4. In solid systems, CO2 is captured when it binds to functionalised
chemicals on solid filters in the air contactor. Each air contactor module operates cyclically, where CO2 is
captured in phase 1 and released in phase 2. Therefore, modules alternate between adsorption and
15 A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Keith et al., 2018.
16 The role of direct air capture in mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. C. Beuttler, et al., 2019.
3
Final Report
desorption modes. CO2 release is achieved via temperature-vacuum swing, where adsorbents are heated,
and a vacuum is applied to force desorption.
Contrary to the liquid DAC, solids use heat at lower temperatures (80-120 ⁰C), possibly allowing waste heat
from large industrial facilities or power plants to be used. The designs of solid systems are usually more
modular than liquids, where both phases happen in a single unit which could be mass produced. Plants of
desired capacities can be built by stacking the necessary amount of such units, which suggests that costs
are expected to scale mostly linearly with plant size, except for common ancillary units. Depending on
regional humidity, water may be another consumable or may be co-produced with CO2.
Solid systems use more novel processes compared to liquids; therefore, they may have more room for cost
reduction. However, the process currently requires frequent replacement of adsorbents, increasing costs.
Figure 4: Schematic illustration of Climeworks DAC air contactor units using solid adsorbents and
a temperature-vacuum-swing process (Beuttler et al., 2019)16
2.2 DACCS technical maturity and current capacities

A useful metric to classify maturity of technologies are technology readiness levels (TRLs), which indicate
the stage a technology is at on its way to large-scale commercialisation. Typically, lower values are
associated with technologies at concept or early laboratory experiments stages and higher values are
associated with at scale demonstration and deployment. Figure 5 below shows the TRL ranges of various
components of a DACCS value chain, according to the IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives17.
Figure 5: Technology readiness levels of DACCS value chain technologies17,18,19

Currently DAC is believed to be at TRL 4-6 where higher TRLs are represent the progress of the major
technology developers and lower TRLs correspond to several other emerging technologies which are at
17 Energy technology perspectives 2020. IEA, 2020- Link

18 Mineral CO2 storage refers to permanent storage in basalt rock formations. Its TRL is based on Element Energy’s
judgement.
19 DAC TRL refers to large-scale system and is based on Element Energy’s judgement (IEA has DAC at TRL 6).
4
Final Report
various stages of demonstrating their technologies at small scales. In general, CO2 transportation through
pipelines is a well-established practice, however, shipping CO2 to other ports or directly to offshore storage
sites are still at medium TRLs, needing further demonstration. Using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
or storage in saline formations are the two more mature storage options. In summary, the CO2 transport
and storage (T&S) components of the DACCS value chain are relatively well understood and not likely to
pose any technological limitations. On the other hand, the capture component still needs demonstrating as
large scale.
This study focusses on the most mature DACCS technologies which are the solid and liquid options
developed by the main technology developers discussed above. Lower maturity DACCS concepts are an
active area of R&D and could be very promising in the future, but they are excluded from this study due to
lack of data.
Currently there are 15 operational DAC plants in the world20 with a total capacity of 11.3 ktCO2/year. Larger
plants either store the CO2 in geologic formations or use it in the beverages industry, however, demonstrator
plants have wider applications including greenhouse fertilisation and production of chemicals and fuels.
Figure 6: Breakdown of the current DAC capacity20
Some notable DAC projects under development are:

• Carbon Engineering: 1 MtCO2/year plant in Texas is planned for 2024 in partnership with Oxy
Low Carbon Ventures for EOR application.
• Climeworks: A 4 ktCO2/year plant for dedicated storage in Iceland will be operational by mid-2021.
Credits will be sold to clients including Microsoft, Stripe, Audi, and Shopify.
• Global Thermostat: Two plants are under construction, each with 2 ktCO2/year capacity, to
explore industrial use of CO2. They are expected to be operational by late 2021.
2.3 DACCS literature and cost projections

A review of recent DACCS literature reveals that there are only a limited number of studies (<20) with
detailed analysis of DACCS costs. A high portion of these studies provide only secondary or tertiary data
which build on previous assumptions and outputs. At times, the separation between academic work and
commercial data is blurred since some researchers are part of DACCS companies and some studies
partially use data from these companies.
Direct comparison of DACCS costs between studies are also challenging due to the high impact of
assumptions on external parameters. Energy prices, cost of capital and lifecycle emissions are relatively
influential on final costs and can vary considerably between studies. Furthermore, almost none of the
studies include CO2 transport and storage costs, hence reported outputs are technically not fully
representative of delivering negative emissions.
20 The DAC MAPP by Carbon 180 [accessed 29 April 2021]- Link
5
Final Report
Representative techno-economic parameters on solid and liquid DACCS technologies are provided in Table
19 in Appendix 5, using a few of the more recent studies in the literature. These data are provided for
background information and are not all used in the current study.
Below are some of the short and long term DACCS costs estimates from the literature:
• Current costs: After reviewing available DAC literature in 2018, Fuss et al. estimated12 first of a
kind (FOAK) DAC costs to be $600-$1000/tCO2, whereas IEA Energy Technologies Perspectives21
(2020) reports overall DAC costs as $130-$340/tCO2. US National Academies of Sciences22 (2019)
calculates medium net removal cost ranges for liquid DAC as $156-$506/tCO2 and solid DAC as
$89-$877/tCO2 based on various fuel assumptions. Rhodium Group23 has slightly more optimistic
estimates of $124-$325/tCO2 across different technologies and assumptions.
• Cost projections: Cost reduction potential of DAC in the literature is mostly speculative, based on
applying learning rates observed in other sectors or adopting targets declared by tech developers.
Fuss et al. (2018) expects12 Nth of a kind (NOAK) cost to reduce to $100-$300/tCO2. Fasihi et al.
(2019) estimate24 that DAC capital costs may reduce by up to 75% if ~0.5 GtCO2/year cumulative
capacity is reached. Rhodium Group23 is also very optimistic with long term DAC costs of $46-
$164/tCO2 in a 2050 timeframe. Most technology developers quote a future target of reaching
$100/tCO2 if capacities can be sufficiently expanded25.
2.4 DACCS in comparison to other NETs

DACCS is only one of the technologies capable of delivering negative emissions, therefore comparing its
attributes to other NETs is useful to understand its strengths and weaknesses as well as conditions where
it can be a more competitive option. Table 1 below summarises the main characteristics of major NETs
based on Fuss et al. (2018)12 and the UK Royal Society Greenhouse Gas Removal Report (2018)26 which
base their analysis on literature reviews and authors’ judgements.
Some nature-based NETs- such as afforestation/reforestation, soil carbon sequestration and ecosystem
restorations- are techniques practiced for long periods of time, hence have the highest TRLs. BECCS and
DACCS are engineered or hybrid options where underlying operating processes are well understood, but
they need to be optimised and demonstrated in more commercial settings. Biochar is more suitable for
smaller applications with uncertainty around its exact impact on agricultural soils. Lastly, enhanced
weathering and ocean-based removal are simple concepts but lag in terms of real-world data and
demonstrations.
All NETs display relatively high-cost variability, but both the literature and the current study implies that
DACCS is likely to be one of the most expensive carbon removal options, especially compared to mature
natural solutions. Furthermore, DACCS has almost no co-benefits besides CO2 removal, whereas other
options generally result in useful co-products and/or improve the quality of the environment.
DACCS, BECCS and potentially enhanced weathering positively separate from the other NETs in their
ability to provide permanent geologic storage. Natural solutions generally depend on storing CO2 in the
form of biomass or biomass derived products, which needs to be managed and/or monitored and is under
constant risk of re-emissions.
DACCS also has fewer negative impacts and siting restrictions than most other NETs. As long as it has
access to low-carbon energy and CO2 storage resources, DACCS can be deployed in most regions (albeit
21 IEA ETP 2020 special report on CCUS, 2020.

22 Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration: a research agenda. National Academy of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, 2019.
23 Capturing leadership: policies for the US to advance direct air capture technology. Rhodium Group, 2019.
24 Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants. Fasihi et al., 2019.
25 News article- Link
26 Greenhouse gas removal. UK Royal Society, 2018.
6
Final Report
with differing costs). NETs relying on ecosystems or biomass compete for scarce agricultural land and other
scarce bioresources (even if waste residues are used). Furthermore, they usually have very large land
footprints, since they rely on plant growth or spreading certain chemicals/solids over large areas. Although
biochar may have positive agricultural benefits, these are currently not well understood or quantified.
DACCS does require mass production of capture chemicals, but these are mostly recycled in the process
and are generally believed to not restrict large-scale deployment.
Lastly, a factor which is often overlooked in technology comparisons is public perception or social
acceptability. Literature on public attitudes on negative emissions is extremely sparse but some early
surveying suggests that the public may be more in favour of mature nature-based solutions as opposed to
engineered technologies27. Further discussion of social acceptance is provided in Box 4 in section 6.1.
27 The path to net zero. Climate Assembly UK, 2020.
7
Assessment of Global Direct Air Capture Potential
Final Report
Table 1: Comparison of different NETs attributes, adapted from Fuss et al. (2018)12 and UK Royal Society (2018)26
Potential28 Costs28
NETs Positive Impacts Negative Impacts CO2 Permanence TRLs Siting Constraints
GtCO2/year $/tCO2
Some applications can improve Some land requirement, High permanence Requires CO2 storage options nearby with preference for
indoor air quality potential impact of with adequate CCS clusters to reduce CO2 T&S costs. Low cost and low-
100 –
DAC29 0.5 - 5 materials/chemicals geological storage 4–6 carbon electricity as well as waste heat availability
300
consumption, high current important.
costs and energy requirements
Electricity, heat or biofuels as Competition with agricultural High permanence Requires CO2 storage options nearby with preference for
100 – co-products, energy land, deforestation, biodiversity with adequate Bioenergy: 7 – 9 CCS clusters. Constrained by biomass availability.
BECCS 0.5 - 5
200 independence, economic losses, albedo change, land geological storage BECCS: 4 – 7 Locations with high forest activity and land not tied for
diversification use change emissions agriculture have higher potentials.
Improved soil, carbon, nutrient, Competition with agricultural Vulnerable to Main limitation is land requirements. Forests should not
and water cycle; potential land, potential for biodiversity disturbance, requires compete with agricultural land or areas designated for
Afforestation/
0.5 – 3.6 5 – 50 biodiversity improvement; local loss, albedo change, land use maintenance, sink 8–9 social use. Countries with most potential30 are Russia and
Reforestation
livelihood; environmental change saturation may limit Canada (boreal), US, Australia, Brazil (tropical), and
services (flood protection) capacity China.
Increase crop yield, improved Mineral extraction/transport Months to geological Needs to be applied to croplands or beaches. USA, China,
Enhanced 50 – soil fertility, nutrient, moisture,
impacts, risk of heavy metal scales India and Brazil have high potentials31. Silicate mining may
2–4 1–5
Weathering 200 increased soil pH release, change in soil be needed, requiring additional energy, for larger volumes,
hydraulic properties but resources are well distributed globally.
Enhanced biological production, Nutrient balance change. Fragile, from months Will require energy, raw materials and smaller amounts of
potential increase in fish Potential impact on marine to millennia land and water for iron fertilisation. Using
Ocean [0 –
[0.5 – 44]32 catches biology unknown. 1–5 nitrate/phosphate may require more resources than iron.
Fertilisation 460]32
Transport infrastructure for minerals and proximity to
oceans needed.
Reduced CH4 and N2O Competition for biomass Decades to centuries Biochar projects are likely to be relatively small scale.
30 – emissions, increased crop yield, sources, plant vulnerability may depending on soil Proximity to biomass sources (such as forests) and
Biochar 0.5 – 2 3–6
120 reduced drought, improved increase if plant defence is type, management, agricultural land to spread the biochar are main
water, nutrient cycling downregulated and conditions considerations.
Pollution reduction, increased Possible increased N2O Reversable if Can be applied to all managed land at low cost. Main
Soil Carbon soil quality, improved soil emissions, faster depletion of N practices are barriers are lack of knowledge or incentive. Countries with
2–5 0 – 100 8–9
Sequestration resilience, agricultural and P discontinued large managed lands should have high potential.
production, water/air quality
28 Reported potentials and costs are authors’ best estimates based on the ranges presented in the literature.
29 Does not include CO2 transport and storage. Will need to add a T&S price in the range of $8-$35/tCO2 for full DACCS costs.
30 The global tree restoration potential. Bastin et al., 2019.
31 Potential for large-scale CO removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Beerling et al., 2020.
2
32 Fuss et al. (2018) see limited potential for ocean fertilisation. Reported numbers are min-max in the literature.
8
Final Report
3. Techno-economic analysis
This section presents the methodology used to develop a high level technoeconomic DACCS model and
investigates short and long-term costs of carbon removal. It also explores the key parameters which are
most impactful on DACCS costs to understand potential for improvements. Finally, a quick discussion on
data quality and uncertainties is provided.
3.1 Methodology for TEA

In this study the short- and long-term costs of DACCS technologies are calculated through a high-level
technoeconomic analysis (TEA). Figure 7 below summarises the key input and output parameters of the
model. Parameters such as CO2 transport and storage (T&S) costs, energy prices and energy carbon
intensities are more regionally dependent, whereas capital expenditure (Capex), scaling factors33, cost of
capital operation and maintenance costs are technology dependent in the model. In practice, some of these
factors would show regional variation as well, for instance the cost of capital changes according to the risk
premium of countries, but this global TEA does not take these regional influences into consideration.
The source of the data used in this TEA and key uncertainties are discussed at the end of this sub-section
and in section 3.4.
Figure 7: Schematic overview of techno-economic input and output parameters,34

The TEA is used to calculate the levelised cost of DACCS (LCOD) of individual plants. LCOD is simply the
total levelised cost (discounted) a plant incurs over its lifetime, divided by the total mass of CO2 it will
remove from the atmosphere35. LCOD is a convenient measure allowing comparison of technologies with
33
Scaling factors allow scaling key costs between plants of different sizes (capacities).
34
Consumables refer to water, oxygen, and other chemicals such as CaCO3.
35
This is implicitly discounted to reflect the real-world discounting of any incentives received by the plant.
9
Final Report
different lifetimes, cost of capitals, capacities, etc. Equation 1 is a simplified expression showing how
LCODs are calculated in this TEA:
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑥 ∗ 𝐶𝑅𝐹 + 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑥 + 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑥 ∗ 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑂2 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐷 = (1)
𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑂2 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒
The calculation is simplified by considering annual costs and CO2 capture, which is straightforward for
variable and fixed operational costs. Capex is assumed to be paid back over the lifetime of the plant along
with the cost of capital. Annual Capex payments are calculated by multiplying total Capex with the capital
recovery factor (CRF), which represents the portion of the initial Capex that needs to be paid every year.
CRF is based on the cost of capital (i) and plant lifetime (n) as shown below:
𝑖 ∗ (1 + 𝑖)𝑛
𝐶𝑅𝐹 = (2)
(1 + 𝑖)𝑛 − 1
The simple LCOD calculated this way represents gross carbon removal costs or the cost of capturing and
processing one tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere. However, DACCS plants also directly or indirectly emit
CO2 or other greenhouse gasses throughout their value chains. This study estimates the total lifecycle
assessment (LCA) emissions associated with constructing and operating a plant to find the net cost of
carbon removal:
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐷
𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐷 = (3)
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜
In this context, the carbon removal ratio is defined as:
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝐶𝐴 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 1 − (4)
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑂2 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑖𝑟
Therefore, a system which emits 100 kgCO2/tCO2 captured has a carbon removal ratio of 90% and its net
LCOD is 11% more than its gross LCOD, showing the importance of minimising LCA emissions. The net
LCOD reported in this study following the above methodology is different than the metrics typically reported
in other studies, which often focus on the cost of capture (without CO2 T&S) and without accounting for all
lifecycle emissions.
As described in the introduction section, this study investigates two main DACCS technologies: liquid
absorbent and solid sorbent systems. The TEA calculates LCODs for both first-of-a-kind (FOAK) plants,
assumed to be deployed in mid-2020s, and Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) plants which are assumed to be deployed
in the long term around 2050. Intermediate steps with costs in between FOAK and NOAK stages are not
considered in this study.
This study uses 2050 as the base year for NOAK calculations, however, this does not imply that NOAK
stage is likely to be reached only by 2050. Reaching NOAK status depends on deployment rates of
individual technologies and this study does not make an assumption regarding future DACCS deployment.
Here, NOAK roughly coincides to 5-7 doublings of initial large-scale production capacity and depending on
future support for DACCS, NOAK stage may be reached by as early as 2035.
A further distinction is made between plants using both heat and electricity (referred to as hybrid plants)
and electricity only plants. This separation is relatively more straightforward for solid DACCS, since the
heating requirements at low temperatures can be provided by heat pumps, but electric-only liquid DACCS
is still at lower TRLs and needs further R&D to develop. Therefore, electric liquid DACCS is only considered
at the NOAK stage.
This study focuses on large-scale DACCS technologies, represented by 1 MtCO2/year plants, however,
smaller scale (100 ktCO2/year) plants are also considered as a case study to understand the impact of size
on different DACCS technologies and configurations. Scaling factors for Capex, operational expenses and
material/energy demand are used to estimate the costs for different plant sizes.
Furthermore, this TEA assumes a flat 90% plant capacity factor (availability) across all the cases and
excludes emissions from transport and storage of CO2, since literature around this was lacking and it is
10
Final Report
generally considered to be very small. A plant lifetime of 30 years was used for liquid technologies and for
solids the lifetime was 10 years for FOAK and 25 years for NOAK plants.
Please see Appendix 1 for the technology related parameters used in this TEA. Our data is based on the
most recent DACCS literature as well as information provided directly by the technology developers. Since
solid DACCS technologies are pursued by more companies, most solid DACCS data used in this study
came from the literature. On the other hand, Carbon Engineering is the largest developer specialising in
liquid DACCS technologies, so a substantial amount of technical data used in this study for liquid DACCS
was provided by them. While we cannot share all of the specific data Carbon Engineering provided to us
due to commercial sensitivity, a public version of this data is made available in the appendix. It should be
noted that Carbon Engineering’s data is not far off some of the parameters provided in the literature, albeit
more ambitious on capex and lifetime. A discussion around major uncertainties and quality of data used in
this study is provided at the end of this section.
Apart from the technology specific data described above, common literature sources were used to
investigate energy prices, energy carbon intensities and CO2 T&S costs. Low, medium, and high values
used for different energy sources and CO2 T&S modes are provided in Appendix 2 and
11
Final Report
Appendix 3. These ranges are used to study sensitivities and global siting factors in section 4.
DACCS costs are highly site dependant, because factors such as electricity prices and emissions are highly
influential. So developing global base case DACCS costs is difficult, and results would not be representative
of all regions. Therefore, in this study, a set of base case parameters were chosen as the most
representative of global DACCS costs. The set of assumptions used for base case calculations are briefly
summarised in Table 2 below and are explained further in Appendix 4. It is important to note that these
base case costs are not the minimum achievable costs and unique settings can significantly reduce LCODs.
Please note that nuclear waste heat is picked for the base case of hybrid solid DACCS plants only as a
representative source in terms of its cost and associated emissions. It is not suggested that nuclear energy
is expected to be the best or the most common heat source for these plants. Future capacities of solid
DACCS technologies would not be limited by availability of nuclear plants.
Table 2: Parameters used for base case DACCS LCOD calculations
Parameter FOAK Liquids NOAK Liquids36 FOAK Solids NOAK Solids
Electricity Solar PV Solar PV Solar PV Solar PV

Price and $68/MWh $50/MWh $68/MWh $50/MWh
Emissions 51 kgCO2/MWh 25 kgCO2/MWh 51 kgCO2/MWh 25 kgCO2/MWh
Heat Price Natural Gas Natural Gas Nuclear Waste Heat Nuclear Waste Heat
and $19/MWh $8/MWh $19/MWh $19/MWh
Emissions 49 kgCO2/MWh 22 kgCO2/MWh 4 kgCO2/MWh 4 kgCO2/MWh
Cost of
10% 5% 10% 5%
Capital
1Mt plant: Offshore
1Mt plant: Offshore 1Mt plant: Offshore
Pipe 1Mt plant: Offshore Pipe
Pipe Pipe
CO2 $8/tCO2 $8/tCO2
$8/tCO2 $8/tCO2
Transport 100 kt plant: 100 kt plant: Trucking
100 kt plant: Trucking 100 kt plant: Trucking
Trucking $13/tCO2
$13/tCO2 $13/tCO2
$13/tCO2
CO2 Offshore Pipeline Offshore Pipeline Offshore Pipeline Offshore Pipeline
Storage $14/tCO2 $14/tCO2 $14/tCO2 $14/tCO2
3.2 Short and long term DACCS costs and LCA emissions
DACCS life-cycle emissions
Since LCA (life-cycle assessment) emissions have a direct influence on net carbon removal costs, it is
useful to first understand the sources and scale of such emissions. The key emissions sources investigated
in this study are plant construction emissions, indirect emissions from production of capture
chemicals and other consumables (CaCO3), energy related (heat and electricity) emissions and
upstream methane leakage when natural gas is used. Figure 8 below, summarises these emissions for
FOAK and NOAK 1 MtCO2/year liquid and solid plants for the base case.
Note that this study does not perform a full cradle to grave LCA analysis and relies on publicly available
sources for estimating emissions. Any potential CO2 leakage from the T&S infrastructure is also not
included.
36 The solar PV cost of $50/MWh used for NOAK plants is the average value added levelised cost of electricity
(VALCOE) of solar PV in 2040 according to the World Energy Outlook 2020 by IEA. This value represents an energy
price which is modified to better account for the intermittent nature of solar generation. So, it accounts for additional
grid balancing or power storage required to reliably use solar energy. More information is provided in Appendix 4.
12
Final Report
Figure 8: LCA emissions of liquid and solid 1 MtCO2/year plants37

Emissions from plant construction and production of other consumables (e.g. CaCO3 for liquids) are
expected to be very low and inconsequential at wider scales according to our estimations. LCA emissions
from capture chemicals (KOH or solid adsorbents) are relatively more significant for solid systems where
adsorbent lifetimes are usually lower and the complex nature of the adsorbents result in higher carbon
intensities.
Heating emissions from solid plants are also expected to be low since the base case uses nuclear waste
heat with marginal carbon intensity. Shifting to electric only configurations would likely increase these
emissions slightly even if low carbon power is used. On the other hand, having access to clean heat sources
is essential for solid DACCS plants. For instance, if heat was provided by natural gas combustion without
any carbon capture, LCA emissions of NOAK hybrid solid systems would be 43% of total atmospheric CO2
captured.
Perhaps the most important contributor to LCA emissions is the source of electricity. For the base case
calculations, we assume that electricity is provided by solar PV, which still results in some emissions due
to panel production. Solar PV carbon intensity is assumed to be halved between the FOAK and NOAK
stages (see the Appendix 2 for specific values), reducing overall NOAK DACCS emissions. Higher
electricity demands of electricity-only plants compared to hybrid plants and of liquid plants compared to
solids explains the relative LCA emissions shown above.
Lastly, upstream methane leakage is a significant factor for hybrid liquid plants, which use natural gas as a
heat source. The climate impact of methane is 32 times more than that of CO2 in a 100-year timeframe,
meaning these leakages from extraction, processing, and transport of natural gas (which are external to
the DACCS plant) can reduce carbon removal efficiencies significantly. We assume that average upstream
methane emissions will reduce by 57%38 between FOAK and NOAK stages, which results in significant
improvements for NOAK hybrid liquid plants. Although we used global averages in our TEA, these
emissions vary regionally and locating DACCS plants in countries with low leakage would improve plant
economics.
Overall LCA emissions of NOAK plants are expected to be 3-4% for solid plants and 6-7% for liquids, which
are relatively low, with marginal impact on net LCODs. Still, FOAK hybrid liquids and FOAK electric solids
have emissions well above 10% due to upstream methane leakage and high electricity demand,
respectively. It should be noted that these emissions are provided for base case assumptions using low
37 For liquid NOAK plants “electric” refers to the first generation of liquid electric plants which may be available in late
2020s, whereas “Next Gen” electric refers to a future configuration in research stages with lower costs and energy
demand.
38 Assumption based on the OGCI countries’ target of 2.7% annual leakage reduction, quoted in: Potential ways the
gas industry can contribute to the reduction of methane emissions. Gie and Macrogaz, 2019.
13
Final Report
carbon energy sources, so resorting to fossil energy sources would significantly increase emissions. For
example, FOAK hybrid liquid systems using 2020 average global grid electricity (237 kgCO2/MWh39) would
emit 39.4% of the CO2 captured.
DACCS short-term costs

Figure 9 below shows the gross LCOD breakdown of FOAK DACCS plants commissioning in mid-2020s
(costs given as 2020 US dollars), where the red diamonds show net carbon removal costs once LCA
emissions, are considered. Base Capex represents the cost of repaying initial capital investment if there
was no cost of finance, and financing cost represents additional payments needed for cost of capital.
As discussed earlier, only hybrid plants are included for liquid DACCS system analysis because electricity
only options are not expected to be available until late 2020s. The TEA also includes several cases with
smaller 100 ktCO2/year plants, although Carbon Engineering does not expect to build such small facilities
in the future. Indeed, scaling up DACCS to climate-relevant levels is likely to be easier with larger plants,
however, smaller applications may be valuable in specific regional settings, such as in areas with low-
carbon waste heat available.
Figure 9: Gross and net costs40 of different FOAK liquid and solid DACCS configurations41
Lastly, the columns named “low-cost electricity” represent a case study of using a solar PV cost of
$24/MWh, as opposed to $68/MWh in the base case. These costs are already achievable in certain
locations currently41 and provide valuable insight to how much DACCS costs can fall if there is access to
low-carbon renewable energy.
FOAK costs calculated in this study broadly fall within the wide range of costs quoted in the literature,
however they are closer to the higher end estimates (see section 5.1 for more detail on literature values).
The main differences with the literature were due to higher energy price and adsorbent consumption/cost
assumptions and inclusion of LCA emissions and CO2 T&S costs.
The breakdown of liquid DACCS costs is relatively even, with more prominent components being energy,
finance and Opex costs. Finance costs are calculated to be up to twice as much as base Capex, showing
the impact of cost of capital on overall LCOD.
Solid DACCS costs are dominated by non-fuel Opex, primarily due to very high costs for replenishing
expensive adsorbents, assumed to be $180/tCO2 for FOAK plants42. Base Capex is also relatively higher
39 World Energy Outlook 2020, IEA.

40 The bars show gross costs and red diamonds show total net LCOD after accounting for LCA emissions.
41 A case with low-cost solar at $24/MWh based on recent average USA power purchase agreements- LINK
42 Cost based on literature review and discussions with Climeworks.
14
Final Report
for solid plants because investment must be recovered over its 10-year lifetime, as opposed to 30 years for
liquids.
CO2 T&S costs form a smaller proportion of total costs for both technologies. Liquids have higher T&S costs
than solids because the liquid DACCS system co-captures and processes additional CO2 (30% of CO2
captured from air) from natural gas combustion.
Liquid DACCS costs for large scale plants were found to be significantly less than solid costs. However,
liquid plants scaled down much less favourably to 100 ktCO2/year capacity, showing the importance of
economies of scale for liquid technologies, which utilise traditional chemical process equipment. On the
other hand, solid DACCS costs were found to scale much more linearly due to their more modular design
and less dependence on centralised process equipment. Therefore, liquid DACCS options are likely to be
more economically viable for larger applications, whereas solids may be more suitable for smaller scales
in the short term.
As shown by the rightmost bars in the above graphs, access to low-cost renewable electricity can reduce
net LCODs by ~$60-$90, so initial DACCS projects would significantly benefit from being situated in
locations with the most favourable energy sources. A more detailed discussion on the impact of energy
prices on LCODs is provided in section 4.3.
Box 1: A note on CO2 accounting for policy purposes

This study reports net DACCS costs by estimating full chain emissions to represent the total
impact of the technology. These include scope 1 (direct plant emissions), scope 2 (emissions
from electricity sources) and scope 3 (indirect emissions from consumables, construction, etc.).
However, most national carbon accounting frameworks only consider direct scope 1 emissions
within each sector; scope 2 and 3 emissions under these frameworks sit within their respective
sectors.
Recently there is interest to align carbon pricing policies with national accounting frameworks.
This implies that only direct emissions from DACCS plants would be accounted for when
payments or incentives are calculated. Emissions from electricity production would reside within
the power sector and result in increased low-carbon energy prices. If DACCS policies/incentives
only consider scope 1 emissions, the LCODs will be slightly lower than the net costs reported in
this study. Any interpretation of the TEA model outputs should be viewed with this consideration.
DACCS longer-term costs

Figure 10 below shows gross and net DACCS costs of NOAK plants commissioning in the long-term (e.g.,
2050). In addition to the cases discussed above, future cost analysis now includes two types of electricity-
only liquid plants: one labelled “Electric” which represents an earlier design, estimated to become available
in late 2020s, and one labelled “Next Gen”, which represents an improved design likely to be developed in
the longer term according to Carbon Engineering.
Similar to the FOAK costs analysis, the “low price” case investigates cost reduction opportunities of having
cheaper solar PV access ($24/MWh as opposed to $50/MWh). Finally, the solid DACCS graph includes an
additional case with even lower solid adsorbent prices43 in line with expectations of Climeworks.
43In this study adsorbent costs are assumed to reduce from $180/tCO2 (FOAK) to $72/tCO2 (NOAK). The low adsorbent
cost case presented here assumes further reduction to $31.5/tCO2 which is Climeworks’ long-term expectation.
15
Final Report
Figure 10: Gross and net costs40 of different NOAK liquid and solid DACCS configurations41
Both technologies achieve significant cost savings from FOAK to NOAK, with NOAK costs ranging from
$151-$277/tCO2 and the distribution of costs mostly staying the same. For liquids, the main savings are
from a lower cost of capital, reduced Capex, lower cost electricity and reduced upstream methane
emissions. For solids, the main cost savings are due to reduced adsorbent costs (improvement of price-
lifetime balance), plant lifetime improvement, Capex reduction and access to lower cost electricity.
Improvements in adsorbent prices are expected in the future due to increased efficiencies and improved
economies of scale as these novel chemicals are started to be mass produced.
Energy prices were found to be more dominant for NOAK liquid electric plants because they have higher
power demand than solid options. On the other hand, non-fuel Opex, specifically solid adsorbent cost, is
clearly the most dominant cost component for solid DACCS.
The overall relationship between costs of smaller and larger scale plants are similar to that of the FOAK
stage. Hybrid and next generation liquids are found to achieve slightly lower LCODs than solids for 1
MtCO2/year plants, presumably due to favourable economies of scale, although regular electric plants had
broadly the same LCOD as solid options. On the other hand, solids seem to stay more cost effective for
smaller applications.
The base case costs were found to be in the range of $200-$250/net tCO2 for long-term NOAK plants,
which is double the frequently quoted long-term industry target of $100/tCO2 (which excludes CO2 T&S
costs). The main barriers for achieving this lower target are energy prices and solid adsorbent costs, as
demonstrated by the TEA. Potential for further cost reduction, including an assessment of lowest likely
DACCS costs, will be explored at a greater extent in the rest of this section and under the global siting
factors discussion.
3.3 Sensitivity analysis

In order to understand the importance and impact of key parameters on overall DACCS costs, a sensitivity
study is performed by varying the values of selected parameters by certain amounts and calculating
resulting LCODs. Figure 11 and Figure 12 below summarise the outputs of the sensitivity analysis
performed on NOAK 1 MtCO2/year capacity liquid and solid hybrid plants, respectively. The columns on
the right indicate how much the parameters were changed, and the bars show the percentage shift on total
net LCOD. Hybrid plants were used as opposed to electric-only configurations to be able to assess impact
of heating costs. Plant scaling factors are not included in this analysis since they are not an inherent
property of the technologies and different scaling methods were used for solid and liquid DACCS.
16
Final Report
Figure 11: Sensitivity of 1 MtCO2/year capacity NOAK hybrid liquid DACCS costs ($/tCO2 net)
Capex and electricity prices were the most influential parameters on overall liquid DACCS costs,
demonstrating the importance of access to low-cost renewables once again. Cost of capital was found to
have moderate impact, therefore securing affordable finance can be a useful enabler for future DACCS
deployment. CO2 T&S costs were another moderately influential component, especially because liquid
systems transport and store more CO2 than originally captured from air. As discussed in more detail in the
next section, locating a DACCS plant in a CCS cluster can significantly reduce T&S costs if infrastructure
is shared. Natural gas prices and upstream methane leakage have the potential to impact costs, but
variation of these parameters is likely to be limited. Lastly, liquids LCODs are not sensitive to solvent and
other consumable prices since these are common chemicals with already relatively low costs.
Compared to liquids, the most significant difference of solid DACCS sensitivity is the very high impact of
adsorbent prices. Adsorbent cost is a product of adsorbent performance and unit costs. There is usually a
trade-off between better performing/longer lasting adsorbents and unit adsorbent costs. Still, further R&D
and economies of scale can improve adsorbent economics, which can increase cost-effectiveness of solid
DACCS.
Solid DACCS costs display less sensitivity to electricity and CO2 T&S prices compared to liquids due to
lower power demands and volumes of CO2 processed. Heat prices are found to have moderate impact on
solid DACCS costs. Some studies in the literature assume waste heat to be free of charge, but our analysis
shows that heat can be a considerable cost component if it is not free.
Lastly, sensitivity of costs to plant lifetimes is noteworthy for both solid and liquid plants. Higher lifetimes
do not reduce costs significantly due to discounting of future expenditure. However, halving of NOAK plant
lifetimes is found to increase LCODs significantly, especially for solid DACCS plants, which have lower
overall lifetimes than liquids.
17
Final Report
Figure 12: Sensitivity of 1 MtCO2/year capacity NOAK hybrid solid DACCS costs ($/tCO2 net)
The above discussion is provided for hybrid NOAK plants, however, sensitivities for other configurations
are expected to differ slightly. For example, electricity-only plants would have no sensitivity to heating costs
or methane leakage, whereas electricity prices would be much more influential. This implies that full electric
plants would be well-suited regions with the cheapest low-cost power, whereas hybrid plants would be
better suited regions with natural gas abundance and limited renewable access.
Since upfront capital investment and financing costs are higher for FOAK plants, early stage DACCS
costs will show much higher sensitivity to Capex and cost of capital. Methane leakage and adsorbent
prices are also expected to be more influential for FOAK plants because our model assumes significant
reduction in both parameters in the future. On the other hand, heating and CO2 T&S prices are expected
to have much less impact on FOAK costs because they are external to capture plants and are not
assumed to improve substantially over the next 30 years.
18
Final Report
Box 2: Impact of learning rates and deployment levels on DACCS costs

A common method to estimate future cost reduction potential of energy or chemical process
technologies is using learning rates. Learning rates indicate how much the cost of a specific technology
falls for each doubling of its installed capacity. Using this method successfully requires making
assumptions about future deployment rates and choosing a learning rate suitable for the given
technology. Since making assumptions about future DACCS deployment is difficult, NOAK DACCS
costs in this study were calculated by using literature figures and technology developer estimates.
However, it is useful to investigate the implications of different learning rates and future DACCS
capacities on LCODs considering some technologies such as solar PV historically achieved very
significant cost reduction by maintaining a high learning rate. The International Energy Agency (IEA)
assumes39 the learning rates of relatively mature technologies- like bioenergy, geothermal, and onshore
wind- to be 5%, whereas onshore wind and solar PV had higher rates at 15% and 20%, respectively.
Figure 13 below summarises the results of a sensitivity analysis where lower and higher DACCS costs
are achieved depending on assumed learning rates and future deployment levels. Starting DACCS
capacities are assumed to be 1 MtCO2/year for liquids (the first large scale plant) and 100 ktCO2/year
for solids (based on sizes used in the literature). Future DACCS capacities are selected to represent
medium and high-level deployment. Learning rates were picked in accordance with the above IEA
ranges. Liquid technologies were given a lower ‘high learning rate’ of 15% because these systems
consist of relatively mature chemical processes compared to solids. Lastly, cost reduction is only
applied to Capex and solid adsorbent costs since the other components are either external to capture
plants or not likely to benefit from learning.
Note that the capacities and learning rates provided for the base cases of both liquid and solid
technologies are not directly used in this study but are provided to illustrate an example scenario of
DACCS deployment and learning rates for reaching the NOAK costs presented.
The results indicate that our base case assumptions fall in between low and high learning rate variants
and potentially DACCS can achieve significantly more cost reduction if high learning rates can be
maintained. Solids appear to benefit more from learning rates, since they have substantial room for
improvement in their adsorbent costs. It should be noted once again that currently there are no large-
scale DACCS plants and initial cost reduction should be demonstrated in the future before learning
rates can be used confidently.
CO2 T&S Energy Non-fuel Opex Financing Base Capex
LCOD- $/net tCO2eq
300 Liquid DACCS Solid DACCS
263
250 230 23
209 23 51
200 194
31
31 161 51
150 67 31
67 134 105
100 67 105
51 23
51
50 51
29 51 22 24
22
23 30 5 29 31 28
0 6 2 1
Base Case Low Learning High Learning Base Case Low Learning High Learning
Initial Capacity 2 Mt 1 Mt 1 Mt 2 Mt 0.1 Mt 0.1 Mt
Final Capacity 113 Mt 100 Mt 5000 Mt 113 Mt 100 Mt 5000 Mt
Learning Rate 10% 5% 15% ~12% 5% 20%
Figure 13: Liquid and solid DACCS costs under various learning rates assumptions
19
Final Report
3.4 Data availability and uncertainties

Below is an overview and discussion around the sources of data used to model liquid and solid DACCS
technologies and inherent uncertainties related to these technologies.
Liquid DACCS data uncertainties:
• Carbon Engineering’s 1 MtCO2/year hybrid DACCS plant Capex estimate is based on a FEL-2
(front end loading) level of analysis44 where all major equipment costs are based on technically and
commercially evaluated budgetary quotes from multiple vendors at the plant scale. This level of
estimate is more detailed than most other kinds of costs estimates in the DACCS literature. Still, a
large-scale plant is not built to date, so there are inherent uncertainties in all costs compared to
more established technologies.
• The Capex of the liquid plant with 100 ktCO2/year capacity is scaled from this estimate, thus has a
lower level of accuracy. Costs for electric plants, especially the next generation electric plant, and
the cost reduction of NOAK plants are also estimates with much higher uncertainties.
Solid DACCS data uncertainties:
• Publicly available cost data on solid DACCS technologies are typically based on pure academic
work and carry higher inherent uncertainties compared to liquids.
• Some data on energy consumption and LCA emissions from technology developers are available,
but are based on smaller scale plants, so estimates for >10 ktCO2/year plants require using scaling
factors.
• Adsorbent cost (driven by consumption/lifetime and price) is the most influential parameter on
LCOD, but information is commercially sensitive. There is significant room for reductions in future
adsorbent costs due to efficiency improvements and mass production of novel chemicals; however,
new sorbents need demonstrating, so somewhat conservative cost reductions are assumed in most
cases in this study.
• The literature is particularly lacking in terms of future cost improvements, as estimates are only
based on learning rates from other industries.
Common DACCS data uncertainties and availability:
• Some other parameters, such as operations, maintenance, and consumable prices have higher
uncertainties, but are not as influential on final LCODs.
• CO2 transport and storage costs are almost always excluded from DACCS analysis in the literature.
These are relatively well-established processes with reasonable certainty, however, costs are
highly site dependent, so should be considered separately unless shared infrastructure is used.
• Scaling down liquid plant sizes to 100 ktCO2/year and scaling up solid plant sizes to 1 MtCO2/year
require using generic scaling factors and significant assumptions, presenting uncertainties.
• Long term cost reductions are inherently difficult to predict since total DACCS capacity to date is
extremely limited. This uncertainty is unlikely to resolve until capacities reach at least several mega
tonnes and some learning rates are demonstrated, which may take until the 2030s.
• Land and water requirements can show wide ranges in the literature. Although not very influential
on costs, these parameters may be better understood once several facilities are built and
interactions between closely sited DACCS plants are studied.
44
More information on FEL- Link
20
Final Report
3.5 Summary of key messages

This section has presented a techno-economic model and a set of base case plant configurations to explore
DACCS costs and lifecycle emissions in the short and long terms. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to
determine the relative impact of different cost components. Below are the key messages emerging from
the model analysis.
• Early DACCS plants in the 2020s are likely to range from ~$350-$700/net-tCO2
stored (when medium cost renewables are used), depending primarily on scale
and energy costs. Early plants are likely to be situated with low-cost renewable
Current
electricity.
Performance
• For liquid systems, large-scale plants are significantly more cost-effective due to
economies of scale. Solid DACCS costs scale more linearly with size and are
likely to be the more cost-effective option for smaller plants (<100ktCO2/year).
• The early DACCS costs calculated here are higher than almost all other CCS
applications (ranging from $50/tCO2 for capture from steel plants to $180/tCO2
for aluminium plants9) and some sustainable aviation fuels (virtually all options
costing10 higher than $300/tCO2).
• Liquid DACCS costs are most sensitive to Capex and electricity prices. Due
Key Cost
to the relatively balanced distribution of costs, most parameters are influential.
Influences
• Solid DACCS prices are most sensitive to adsorbent costs and future
adsorbent performance improvements are the single most important factor which
will determine cost-effectiveness of solid DACCS. Solid DACCS costs are also
more sensitive to plant lifetime and may significantly suffer if lifetime is reduced.
• Significant cost reduction can be achieved in the future, with DACCS reaching
~$194-$230/net-tCO2 stored for 1 Mt/year NOAK plants (~2050), driven by
Cost reduced electricity prices, cost of capital and upfront capital investment.
Reduction However, costs are likely to be higher for smaller plants and further cost reduction
potential exists for more ambitious renewables and adsorbent cost reduction
(discussed in more detail in section 4.6).
• Liquid DACCS further benefits from overall improvements in upstream methane
leakage (57% reduction) in the gas industry. Solid DACCS technologies
experience further cost reduction through increases in plant lifetimes (from 10 to
25 years) and cost-performance improvements of adsorbents.
Lifecycle • The lifecycle emissions associated with DACCS range from 3-7% of the CO2
Emissions captured for NOAK plants (if low carbon energy is used) and are primarily
associated with the energy inputs (electricity and heat) and upstream methane
emissions if natural gas is used in the process. Therefore, reducing the carbon
intensity of energy sources are of paramount importance.
Uncertainties • Since no large-scale plant is built to date, inherent uncertainties on most

parameters are high. The largest uncertainties requiring major assumptions are
on plant scaling factors, future cost reductions through learning and solid
adsorbent cost-performance dynamic.
21
Final Report
4. Global DACCS siting considerations

4.1 Overview
On the surface it may appear as if DACCS technologies can be deployed anywhere with access to low
carbon energy and CO2 storage resources. Although this is mostly technically correct, DACCS costs and
viability can be influenced by many other factors, some of which are summarised in Figure 14 below. In this
section we will discuss most of the key global siting factors influencing the best locations or conditions for
DACCS deployment. Specifically, the section will cover:
• CO2 transport and storage infrastructure and availability.
• The option to utilise CO2 to produce valuable commodities
• Availability of low carbon electricity and heat sources.
• Flexible operation of DACCS plants following renewables generation patterns.
• Water and land requirements.
• Regional policy and regulatory suitability.
Lastly, this section will pull from the above topics and the TEA presented in section 3 to explore several
“low-hanging” fruit cases which would present ideal opportunities for DACCS deployment. We will also
investigate how low DACCS costs can fall if many favourable conditions are achieved simultaneously.
Figure 14: A schematic representation of key global DACCS siting factors
4.2 CO2 transport and storage

Perhaps the most significant physical limitation for DACCS is having access to a geologic formation for
permanent CO2 storage. Currently the two main approaches to geographic CO2 storage are injection of
supercritical CO2 in deep sedimentary formations and CO2 mineralization into carbonate rocks by
interaction with alkaline material. Storage in sedimentary formations have higher TRLs and a longer
practice history, which have put this technique to the forefront of most studies and projects.
Recently, a study called CDR Primer13 reviewed the literature on prospective sedimentary basins and
compiled the existing data to map regions with favourable storage resources (as shown in Figure 15). It is
22
Final Report
noted that countries which emit the most greenhouse gasses (GHG) have relatively well-developed storage
capacities. Lower estimates of the total global storage capacity are around 7,000 GtCO2 which is over three
times the total GHG emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The US hosts the most
current Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects and CO2 injection activities. Europe, East Asia, and
Australia represent the majority of future storage projects. Although global storage resources are not likely
to be a limitation for DACCS deployment, detailed regional appraisal projects are needed to develop a more
comprehensive understanding of which national or sub-national regions would be the best locations,
especially considering that onshore storage in densely populated regions (e.g., Europe) is not likely.
Figure 15: Prospective sedimentary basins for CO2 sequestration. Colours represent the level and
source of knowledge. Grey areas correspond to regions without local studies but with a
sedimentary thickness of >1000m. Image taken from CDR Primer (2021)13.
The Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) tracks the development of CO2 storage resources in 80 countries by
assessing factors such as total storage capacity, site appraisal programmes and experience with CO2
storage projects. It ranks countries based on their global CCS storage indicator45 (as shown in Figure 16
below) which is made up of these factors. By 2018, 12 countries had mature or near-mature storage
resources: Norway, Canada, United States, China, Australia, Brazil, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia,
the UK, Netherlands, Germany, and Japan. GCCSI identifies moderately scoring European countries- such
as Poland, Spain, France, Denmark, and Hungary- as high opportunity nations which should focus on
having more detailed appraisal projects to develop commercially viable storage resources. Another group
of high opportunity countries consist of Russia, Indonesia and India, which have poorly developed storage
resources but high inherent interests in CCS since they heavily depend on fossil fuels.
45 CCS storage indicator. GCCSI, 2018.
23
Final Report
Figure 16: GCCSI's global CCS storage indicator heat map45
To better understand the impact of access to CO2 T&S infrastructure, we investigated the different T&S
costs a DACCS facility would face depending on various configurations. This study considers three types
of CO2 transport modes, which are:
• Trucking: ideal for smaller capacity plants and over short distances.
• Shipping: ideal for offshore storage over long distances or for smaller plants.
• Onshore/offshore pipelines: ideal for larger capacity plants over short/medium distances.
The current TEA considers low, medium, and high transportation costs46 for the four modes listed above,
based on travel distances for a 1 MtCO2/year capacity plant. Additionally, low/medium/high estimates for
onshore and offshore CO2 storage are taken from the literature47. Please see
46 Element Energy’s internal analysis based on (A) Element Energy's CCUS at Dispersed Sites study for BEIS (2020)
and (B) Element Energy's CO2 Shipping model for BEIS (2018).
47 The costs of CO storage: post-demonstration CCS in the EU. Zero Emissions Platform, 2010.
2
24
Final Report
Appendix 3 for more detail.

The base case LCOD calculations discussed so far used medium offshore transport and storage costs for
1 MtCO2/year plants, which are $8.18/tCO2 and $14.18/tCO2 gross, respectively. Figure 17 below shows
how these CO2 T&S costs would change under different assumptions. These are gross costs per tonne of
CO2 processed in the plant - net costs per tonne of net CO2 removed would be slightly higher once LCA
emissions are taken into account. Also, hybrid liquid plants would have 30% higher T&S costs in their
LCODs because these plants capture and process 0.3 tonnes of additional CO2 from natural gas
combustion for each tonne captured from the atmosphere48.
Results indicate that costs increase with transport distance, as expected, but utilisation of ships can keep
the long-distance transport costs to relatively acceptable levels. Onshore storage is expected to be lower
cost than offshore operations, where T&S costs of a medium distance onshore storage project is found to
be half the cost of an offshore option.
Significant cost savings can be achieved if shared T&S infrastructure is used. The “best case” option
displayed is based on low onshore storage costs and short distance pipeline transport costs for a 10
MtCO2/year project, which is representative of a wider CCS cluster. CO2 T&S prices in these favourable
conditions may be as low as $5/tCO2. Offshore versions of these clusters can be achieved around the North
Sea and shores of Australia, China, and North America49. On the other hand, a worst-case scenario would
be a much smaller facility (~100 ktCO2/year) shipping CO2 over long distances for offshore storage. Costs
can easily exceed $60/tCO2 and become very prohibitive for DACCS projects under such conditions. In
short, average CO2 T&S costs are likely to be in the range of ~6-15% of total LCOD in our base case
calculations and significant savings can be achieved by sharing the infrastructure with other projects.
Figure 17: Gross CO2 T&S costs per tonne of CO2 processed for different configurations
CO2 utilisation
DACCS plants discussed so far use CO2 transport and storage to achieve net negative emissions, however,
DAC can also be combined with various CO2 utilisation routes to produce useful products. CO2 utilisation
with DAC may generate net negative emissions in some unique circumstances, but the majority of utilisation
options only result in emissions mitigation by reducing embedded emissions in otherwise high carbon
products. CO2 utilisation can be used in regions without geological CO2 storage resources, where
infrastructure is not yet developed or where storage is not politically desirable or very expensive (such as
48
This is accounted for in the LCOD in this study TEA
49 Enabling the deployment of industrial CCS clusters. By Element Energy for IEAGHG, 2018.
25
Final Report
small plants in remote locations). CO2 utilisation can also increase total DAC deployment, thereby
accelerate cost reduction through economies of scale, even if it does not produce negative emissions.
Accelerated mineralization and catalytic conversion (summarised in Figure 18 below) are two key CO2
conversion pathways pursued by a high number of developers50 and have applications which have reached
TRL 9. These top pathways differ in the types of non-CO2 feedstock they require, the final products and
permanence of CO2 storage. Other conversion pathways include fermentation and photosynthetic routes
which have fewer developers and applications that are up to TRL 7. On the other hand, electrochemical
and photocatalytic routes have higher numbers of developers but applications which are mostly TRL 4-5.
Lastly, CO2 can be used in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) to increase productivity of depleted oil wells.
EOR is a very well-established technology (TRL 9). CO2 can be permanently stored if it is continuously
separated from the oil and re-injected to the well. Still, the overall process is close to net-zero emissions
considering downstream emissions from of oil use51.
Figure 18: Summary of the two key mature CO2 utilisation routes50
To investigate the impact of CO2 utilisation on DAC costs, a set of different cases are considered, as shown
in Figure 19 below. A 1 MtCO2/year capacity hybrid liquid DAC plant is chosen as a base case. Costs are
reported as gross, without accounting for LCA emissions, because CO2 utilisation routes do not necessarily
result in negative emissions, so presenting costs for net CO2 removal is not possible.
Apart from the base case, the other scenarios considered in this analysis are:
• No T&S case has zero CO2 T&S cost, representing a scenario where CO2 is given to a nearby
customer for free or where T&S costs cancel out any sales revenue.
• CO2 revenue case where CO2 sales generate $20/tCO2 revenue52, which is chosen as a
representative CO2 sales price without any special incentives.
50 Element Energy CCU study- to be published

51 Is EOR a dead end for carbon capture and storage? Thomas Overton, Power Magazine, 2016- Link
52 The value of $20/tCO is illustrative and will depend on CO accounting; this value assumes that the DAC plant does
2 2
not? receive any negative emissions incentive, but if the end-user receives the benefit, then this CO2 value is likely to
be considerably higher.
26
Final Report
• Lower costs case where the same $20/tCO2 sales revenue is maintained and DAC costs are
lower because the CO2 does not need to be pressurised since transport or underground injection
are not needed53.
• Lastly a bar labelled “California LCFS” to represent the average value of a 1 tCO2 credit in
California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard mechanism54 in which DAC or DACCS plants can
participate. This represents one of the highest values a tonne of CO2 can receive in the world.
Analysis shows that CO2 utilisation can slightly reduce carbon capture costs if CO2 T&S costs can be saved.
Net costs after revenues can get closer to the $100/tonne mark if CO2 can be sold for a revenue and sub-
$100 net costs are likely to be achieved if CO2 can be sold to nearby facilities at atmospheric pressure.
Even in this best-case scenario, carbon sales alone cannot incentivise DAC deployment unless there is a
significant premium placed on CO2 captured from air (such as a carbon price of >$81/tCO2 even after a
small revenue). Some existing policies, such as the LCFS can close this gap and future CO2 utilisation
policies may achieve similar effects. Please see section 6.2.5 for more information on existing and potential
future policies to incentivise DAC and carbon utilisation.
Figure 19: Exploratory gross LCODs of different CO2 use scenarios for a NOAK 1 MtCO2/year hybrid
liquid DAC plant.
4.3 Energy prices and availability

The TEA discussion provided in section 3.2 briefly touched upon the significant DACCS cost reduction
potential if low-cost renewables can be used. This section will provide an overview of global clean energy
availability and investigate the impact of a wide range of energy prices on LCODs.
Figure 20 below maps the global potential for concentrated solar power (CSP), solar PV, onshore/offshore
wind energy based on different literature sources13. Key favourable locations for low-carbon energy are:
Low carbon electricity:
• Solar energy is strongest in regions close to the equator and highest latitudes for feasible
deployment is ~60 degrees. The regions with highest cost-effective potentials are Africa, the Middle
East, Australia, Southern US, and South America.
• On the other hand, wind power tends to be stronger at higher latitudes and in offshore setting
compared to onshore settings. The best locations are southern South America, New Zealand, the
South Coast of Australia, and Northern Europe.
• New hydropower developments also present opportunities for DACCS. Most dam projects are in
the Himalayas, South America and around Turkey.
53 A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Keith et al., 2018. Capex and electricity reduction ratios calculated
from variants C and D.
54 California LCFS traded at $193-$199/tCO in the last quarter of 2020- Link
2
27
Final Report
Low carbon heat:

• Concentrated solar power (CSP) is limited to latitudes of <45 degrees in the same general
regions feasible for solar PV.
• Nuclear power is relatively abundant in densely populated areas of developed countries such as
Europe, North America, and east coast of Asia. Nuclear can provide both low-carbon electricity and
waste heat.
• Geothermal energy can be used for both heat and power with high availability. Some regions with
high potential are the western US, Japan, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Turkey, Iceland,
and New Zealand.
It is important to note that although hybrid plants require both sustainable heat and power sources,
electric only configurations only need to secure low-carbon electricity. Solid DACCS plants operate at
low temperatures (80-120 ⁰C) so they can utilise most sources of heat, including geothermal and
nuclear waste heat described above. Hybrid liquid DACCS require heat at high temperatures (~900
⁰C), hence only CSP would be a viable option of low-carbon heat, besides Carbon Engineering’s current
design of combusting natural gas with 100% co-capture of resulting CO2.
Figure 20: Heat and electricity production opportunities from CSP, solar PV and wind13
To better understand the impact of chosen electricity and heat sources on DACCS costs, a comprehensive
sensitivity study is performed. Figure 21 and Figure 22 below present the changes in LCODs of 1
MtCO2/year capacity NOAK liquid and solid DACCS plants respectively, when different energy sources are
used. In both graphs, the x-axis shows the cost of electricity and the y-axis displays net LCODs, which
consider total LCA emissions. LCODs for both hybrid and electric-only plants are provided for
low/medium/high costs of solar PV, wind, natural gas CCS and average global grid55. Further information
on power and heat price assumptions can be found in Appendix 2. Although nuclear power is not included
on the charts, it has a similar carbon intensity to wind power, therefore wind energy data points can be
extrapolated to the desired electricity prices to estimate nuclear powered DACCS costs. Lastly, Table 3
provides representative solar PV and offshore wind levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for different regions.
These may provide useful context for interpreting the sensitivity charts, but it should be noted that LCOEs
only represent power generation costs, not purchase prices.
55The grid represents an average global grid in 2050. Costs and carbon intensity are based on IEA World Energy
Outlook 2019 and IEA Future of Hydrogen.
28
Final Report
Table 3: Representative renewables 2040 LCOEs for different regions39,56

Region Solar PV ($/MWh) Offshore Wind ($/MWh)
India 15 55
USA 25 50
Europe 30 35
China 20 40
LCOD of liquid DACCS varies between $130-$498/tCO2 depending on the electricity price and emissions
assumed. For cost effective DACCS deployment it is important to site the plants near a source of low-cost
low carbon power. As expected, LCODs of electric-only plants show greater variation with the cost and
source of electricity, which implies that hybrid systems using natural gas for heat (capturing CO2) may be
better suited to regions with high electricity prices, whereas electric DACCS may be more cost effective in
areas with low-cost renewable electricity. Power from unabated natural gas or coal are not expected to be
used for DACCS, since LCA emissions, thus costs, would be too high, going beyond the ranges shown
here.
56 The costs presented here are generation costs, therefore DACCS plants are likely to experience higher prices due
to grid balancing.
29
Final Report
Figure 21: Sensitivity of NOAK 1MtCO2/year liquid DACCS costs to different electricity sources
Figure 22: Sensitivity of NOAK 1MtCO2/year solid DACCS costs to different energy sources57
Solid DACCS sensitivity follows a similar pattern to liquids, except costs are slightly less influenced by
power prices, since solids have lower electricity demands. LCODs around the $200/tCO2 mark are
achievable when different types of low-cost waste heat sources are used, however, using unabated gas for
heating can significantly increase DACCS costs by increasing LCA emissions. In reality, unabated gas is
not expected to be used as a heat source for DACCS but is included here to make a comparison.
57 Natural gas low ($7.98/MWhth LHV) and high ($35.9/MWhth LHV) refer to different prices. Free waste heat
represents an idealised case of zero cost zero emissions heat availability. See Appendix 2 for more information.
30
Final Report
Box 3: Flexible DACCS operation matching renewables generation patterns
Using intermittent renewables to power DACCS can introduce challenges since solar and wind are not
available all the time (have low load factors). DACCS plants may circumvent this issue by storing
electricity (which would increase costs), making low-carbon power purchase agreements (may not
always be available) or operating plants flexibly.
Currently technology developers have no plans of operating DACCS flexibly, but they believe that this
is technically feasible. Solid plants can operate flexibly rather easily, but frequent shutdowns would be
a challenge for liquid DACCS which needs to operate desorption process at 900⁰C. Still, it is possible
to operate the CO2 capture process flexibly, store the CaCO3 pellets onsite and run the desorption
process continuously.
To explore the potential impact of flexible DACCS operation on costs, several indicative cases are
developed for a NOAK 1 MtCO2/year electric liquid plant as shown in Figure 23 below. It is assumed
that the total Capex does not change from the base case. As plant load factors decrease from 90%
(base case) to 30% and 15%, the base Capex and financing components of LCODs increase to 3 and
6 times the original, respectively. This is due to assets getting utilised less, where each tonne of CO 2
removed now needs to recover more of the Capex.
The objective of flexible operation is to reduce electricity prices. This is explored through the low and
zero electricity price cases. CO2 T&S and non-fuel Opex are assumed to stay constant across cases.
It is found that a 30% load factor coupled with more affordable electricity is likely to cost slightly more
than the base case. On the other hand, having free electricity can reduce LCODs below the base
levels. Still, securing free electricity with a load factor as high as 30% would not be very likely. Lower
load factors around 15% are expected to be much more expensive than continuous operation.
Please note that this is only a high-level “what-if” exploration with several simplistic assumptions.
Further dedicated work is needed to better understand the potential benefits of flexible DACCS
operation. As power grids are decarbonised in the future, the value of grid balancing and flexibility may
increase to levels where flexible DACCS can be economically more viable.
LCOD- $/net tCO2eq
350
319
300 294 24
24 32
250
219
206 106
200 24 187 128
24 CO2 T&S
32 24
150 32 32 32 Energy
106
100 64 64 64 Non-fuel Opex
32 135 Financing
50
21 67 67 67 Base Capex
0 22
A- Base case B- 30% LF C- 30% LF D- 30% LF E- 15% LF
low elec free elec free elec
Figure 23: Costs of flexible operation of a 1 MtCO2/year NOAK liquid electric plant. Load factor
(LF) is the proportion of time the plant is running. Base elec: $50/MWh; low elec: $15/MWh.
31
Final Report
4.4 Water and land requirements

The environmental impact and potential restrictions of DACCS technologies were briefly discussed in
comparison to other NETs in section 2.4. Land and water requirements of climate change mitigation options
are usually considered to be key siting factors, so this section will provide further discussion on these
requirements and their implications for siting DACCS plants.
Climeworks estimates that 1 GtCO2/year DACCS capacity would use 64 km2 for the base plant, going up
to 2000 km2 including solar PV installations16 to supply energy to the plant. This estimation uses higher
solar irradiation observed in the US and a heat pump coefficient of performance of 3.5. Still, as can be seen
in Figure 24 below58, DACCS would take up less space than some other NETs even if land use is tripled.
Hybrid DACCS systems using waste heat or natural gas would take even less space since power demand
would be reduced. Furthermore, DACCS does not require arable land, allowing it to be situated on lower
quality land as long as it has access to infrastructure and energy sources. Regions with land restrictions
may consider hybrid DACCS options or offshore power generation options.
Figure 24: Comparison of land area required by different carbon removal options58
DACCS water consumption depends on the relative humidity and temperature of a given location. In
general water losses are lower for humid and colder environments. A wide range of water demand
estimates are provided in the literature. For liquid systems estimates22,53 are in the range of 2-8
kgH2O/kgCO2. For solids, a range22,59 of 1.6-12 kgH2O/kgCO2 is quoted. Depending on the selected solid
technology and the environment, water may even be generated.
In order to maintain a DACCS capacity of 8 GtCO2/year, a maximum of 96 Gt water would be needed every
year when the upper estimate is used. This corresponds to about 1.26% of global agricultural water use.
This requirement compares favourably with BECCS and Afforestation, which require 220 kgH2O/kgCO2
and 319 kgH2O/kgCO2 respectively59.
Overall water demand is not expected to be a large restriction in most regions, except for very dry and hot
settings such as deserts. Desalination of water may cost 2.5 times as much as regular freshwater in the
US60. Increasing water price by 2.5 times increases LCODs of both liquid and solid electric NOAK plants
by <3%, implying that resorting to desalination, although not ideal, may be viable for DACCS.
58 Presented by Climeworks in Clean Energy Ministerial CCUS Initiative Webinar- Direct Air Capture of CO2: Helping
to Achieve Net-Zero Emissions. 21 April 2020.
59 Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO emissions. Smith et al., 2015.
2
32
Final Report
Note that the water demand discussion provided here is for the capture process only and full DACCS supply
chain operation would require higher water use. For example, Climeworks’ DACCS plant in Iceland which
stores CO2 in basalt formations requires ~20 kgH2O/kgCO2 brackish water.
In short, despite wide variation in estimated water demand of DACCS technologies, this is not expected to
be a major limitation for the technology in most settings, especially compared to alternative NETs.
4.5 Regulatory, policy and social factors

A group of key global DACCS siting factors which are often overlooked in more technical studies are
regulatory, policy and social considerations. These factors can act as barriers to deployment or enablers
for rapid uptake of new technologies depending on unique circumstances. Most of these factors are external
to the physical technology itself and can be influenced by governments or other actors relatively quickly. A
discussion on current and potential future policies or actions to incentivise DACCS is provided in section 6.
A brief overview of some of these factors and a list of countries which have more advanced CCS policies
are given below.
• Public perception: Social preferences regarding NETs vs emissions reduction options and
DACCS vs nature-based carbon removal can be very influential on viable regional decarbonisation
strategies. Furthermore, public perception on onshore and offshore CO2 storage may limit future
DACCS options. A more detailed discussion on DACCS public perception is provided in Box 4 in
section 6.1.
• Climate ambition: Regions with strong climate commitments are likely to be ideal locations for
siting initial DACCS projects. The climate ambition of countries or regions may be evidenced by
clear net-zero targets, inclusion of emerging technologies in decarbonisation roadmaps, an active
carbon tax or other carbon pricing mechanisms and willingness to be climate change leaders.
Europe and North America, especially regions with a carbon tax, are prime examples of areas with
high climate ambitions.
• Policies: Since the only product of DACCS is CO2 removal from the air, financial incentives should
be placed on carbon removal to enable DACCS businesses. Current financial support for DACCS
is extremely limited, but some countries have recently shown interest in expanding financial support
for DACCS demonstration and R&D. Enabling DACCS, will also require a host of supportive
policies such as dedicated carbon removal targets, creation of international negative emissions
credits markets, skilled workforce training, and support for CO2 storage site appraisal.
• Regulations: As discussed in section 6.2.4 in more detail, currently regulations surrounding
DACCS are only limited to some general CCS related provisions in a small number of countries.
North America, Europe and Australia are some of the regions further ahead in terms of having a
developed CCS regulatory regime. Fast deployment of DACCS plants in the medium to long term
requires establishment of clear and comprehensive regulations and efficient permitting processes
for capture plants, CO2 T&S businesses, renewable power projects and electricity infrastructure
upgrades, which are essential components of DACCS value chains. Moreover, resolving legal
issues surrounding differences between surface land and underground pore space ownership
rights in the US and other countries61 is essential to enable scaling up DACCS.
GCCSI tracks the CCS policy support in different countries and calculates representative policy indicators62
for each region. Some of the key factors tracked are policy leadership, fiscal incentives, market
mechanisms, public finance, and regulations. As shown in Figure 25 below, six countries are clearly ahead
of the rest in terms of policy support: The US, Canada, the UK, Norway, China, and Japan. All these
countries have experience with large or smaller pilot scale CCS facilities. Although UK has no operational

62 CCS policy indicator. GCCSI, 2018.
33
Final Report
CCS facility to date, its strong institutional frameworks granted it a high score. According to GCCSI, the
second band of countries with strong, albeit not very comprehensive, set of CCS policies are the
Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, and South Korea. These countries are likely to be ideal locations for early
DACCS plants since CCS support can be an indicator of willingness to support engineered carbon
removals. Still, governments must adopt significant DACCS and NETs specific policies to present attractive
investment opportunities.
Figure 25: GCCSI's global CCS policy indicator heat map62
4.6 Low hanging fruits and favourable DACCS cases

The above sub-sections discussed the key global DACCS siting factors and in some cases explored their
impact on costs. This section aims to combine some of these factors to present different cases for both
liquid and solid DACCS plants which may be low hanging fruits or ambitious cost targets.
Table 4 and Table 5 below summarise the different parameters used to define these low hanging fruit cases
for long term NOAK liquid and solid DACCS technologies, respectively. Figure 26 and Figure 27 then
provide the net LCODs associated with these cases. The parameters provided in the tables follow from
general literature values gathered for the TEA and the analysis carried out in this section. In general, the
cases differ in the specific DACCS technology and capex, source and price of energy, CO2 T&S setup, and
cost of finance.
For liquid DACCS technologies, siting a plant in an industrial CCS cluster can achieve moderate cost
reduction, especially considering large volumes of CO2 processed. A more effective option for improving
plant economics is using low-cost solar power (cases 3 and 4) which can achieve 24%-33% lower LCODs
depending on the type of electric liquid technology used. Combining low-cost solar, shared CO2 T&S
infrastructure and an ambitious 3% cost of capital may reach LCODs as low as the long-term industry target
of $100/tCO2.
Although renewable generation is likely to be achieved at these low costs in some regions in the future, the
cost of energy storage or grid balancing may keep electricity purchase prices higher than the ambitious
assumptions in these scenarios. CCS clusters with access to shared CO2 infrastructure and low-carbon
renewables/gas in regions with low project risks are ideal low hanging fruits for future liquid DACCS plants.
34
Final Report
Table 4: Main parameters used for long-term NOAK liquid plant costs calculation under favourable
conditions. Blue boxes show parameters that have changed from the base case.
5 – Very
Sensitivity 1 - Base Case 2 - Cluster 3 - Low-Cost Solar 4- Low Capex
Ambitious
Next Next
Technology Hybrid Liquid Hybrid Liquid Electric Liquid Generation Generation
Electric Electric
Capex, Fixed
Opex, Solvent, Base Case Base Case Base Case Base Case63 Base Case63
Consumables
Solar PV – Solar PV –
Electricity Solar PV – Low Solar PV – Low Solar PV – Low
Base Case Base Case
Source ($14/MWh) ($14/MWh) ($14/MWh)
($50/MWh) ($50/MWh)
Base Case In Cluster Base Case Base Case In Cluster
CO2 T&S
($22/tCO2) ($5/tCO2) ($22/tCO2) ($22/tCO2) ($5/tCO2)
Cost of Capital 5% 5% 5% 5% 3%
Figure 26: Liquid long-term NOAK 1 MtCO2/year plant costs for various favourable conditions
The single most important cost reduction opportunity for solid DACCS plants is improving adsorbent cost-
performance balance, which is illustrated with case 2 where LCOD may reduce by up to $60/tCO2 when a
more ambitious adsorbent assumption is made. As shown with case 3, reaching ~$170/tCO2 without better
adsorbents require solid hybrid plants to have simultaneous access to low-cost solar energy, shared CO2
T&S infrastructure, and free waste heat.
Electric solid DACCS plants with access to low-cost solar are estimated to achieve 15% cost reduction,
which is significantly less than the equivalent cost reduction observed with liquids. Lower power demand
and higher overall base case LCOD of solids are the main reasons for this result.
Lastly, a very ambitious case combining improved adsorbents, low-cost solar, shared T&S infrastructure,
lower cost of capital and more favourable learning rates64 is found to be able to bring solid DACCS costs
to relatively very low levels of ~$80/tCO2.
63 Next generation electric plants have lower Capex and power demand than earlier electric plant designs.
64 Capex and financing costs for the very ambitious case presented here are calculated following the methodology
described in Box 2, assuming a learning rate of 15%, initial DACCS capacity of 1 MtCO2/year and a final 2050 capacity
of 2 GtCO2/year.
35
Final Report
Low hanging fruit opportunities for deployment of solid DACCS are industrial CCS clusters with waste heat
availability and access to low-cost renewables in regions with minimal project risks. However, ensuring
reduction of adsorbent costs is likely to be as effective as situating plants in these most ideal locations.
Table 5: Main parameters used for long-term NOAK solid plant costs calculation under favourable
conditions. Blue boxes show parameters that have changed from the base case.
3- Low-Cost 4- Low-Cost
Sensitivity 1- Base Case 2- Better Sorbent 5- Very Ambitious
Cluster Solar
Technology Hybrid Solid Hybrid Solid Hybrid Solid Electric Solid Electric Solid
Capex, Fixed
Low Adsorbent Low Adsorbent Cost65
Opex, Solvent, Base Case Base Case Base Case
Cost65 & High Learning Rate64
Consumables
Solar PV – Solar PV – Base Solar PV – Solar PV –
Electricity Solar PV – Low
Base Case Case Low Low
Source ($14/MWh)
($50/MWh) ($50/MWh) ($14/MWh) ($14/MWh)
Free Waste –
Nuclear Nuclear
Heat Source no cost, no - -
($19/MWh) ($19/MWh)
emissions
Base Case Base Case In Cluster Base Case In Cluster
CO2 T&S
($22/tCO2) ($22/tCO2) ($5/tCO2) ($22/tCO2) ($5/tCO2)
Cost of
5% 5% 5% 5% 3%
Capital
Figure 27: Solid long-term NOAK 1 MtCO2/year plant costs for various favourable conditions
65This study assumes solid adsorbent costs of $180/tCO2 (FOAK) and $72/tCO2 (NOAK), however Climeworks has a
long-term estimate of reaching $31.5/tCO2 captured from air, which is used for the ambitious cases here.
36
Final Report
4.7 Summary of global siting factors

This section has explored the key global siting parameters quantitatively or qualitatively to understand their
impact on economic feasibility of different DACCS technologies and to better understand regions most
suitable for DACCS deployment. Below are the major messages on these siting factors:
• Conditions change significantly between regions, requiring site and project

specific studies in the future.
• Stakeholders and our analysis identified access to low-cost renewable power,
cost of capital and proximity to CO2 transport and storage as the most
influential global siting factors. These resources are not evenly distributed
Key Influential globally but most of the current largest emitting countries are expected to have
Factors enough storage capacity and access to low-cost renewables.
• Water and land requirements are not expected to be major barriers in most
regions/countries. Even if higher cost desalinated water is used, DACCS costs
expected to rise by <3%.
• Public acceptance, regulatory regimes, investment risks and policy
support can be major early challenges, but these can be resolved by
governments and policy so are not barriers inherent to DACCS technology.
• If global trading of carbon removal develops on an international CO2 accounting
framework66, then DACCS will likely only be situated in particularly favourable
locations with low-cost renewables and CO2 storage.
• The most favourable regions for DACCS will have access to excess low-cost &
low-carbon power and heat, CO2 storage resources (with no public resistance),
Favourable have strong commitment to reducing their emissions and have regulatory/policy
Regions support for DACCS, CCS and NETs. Under ambitious cost-performance
assumptions and favourable conditions, DACCS costs could reach
~$100/net-tCO2 long term. These favourable conditions may come to exist, but
it is difficult to comment on the size of the opportunity.
• In the short-medium term, some ideal locations for DACCS may be parts of North
America, Western Europe (North Sea), Australia, Middle East and Eastern China,
and Japan.
• Countries at higher latitudes are likely to have higher renewables costs in the
longer term, particularly if they do not have offshore wind opportunities, meaning
Less favourable DACCS is likely >$200 /net-tCO2. Other barriers to DACCS are lack of national
Regions CO2 storage, where the remaining options are DAC with carbon utilisation (limited
in scale and needs permeant sequestration67) and export of CO2.
• Although not modelled separately in this study, using renewables to replace
coal generation is shown to be more effective than removing CO2 from air
via DACCS to reduce net emissions13,68. Countries with coal dependence such
as China, India, Poland, can first focus on displacing those assets rather than
allocating scarce renewables to power DACCS.
66 e.g. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement

67 Most CO2 utilisation options do not permanently store carbon, hence do not provide negative emissions. Some
exceptions are net-negative cement/aggregate production.
68 Natural gas vs. electricity for solvent-based direct air capture. McQueen et al., 2021.
37
Final Report
5. Inclusion of DACCS in IAMs and recommendations for the

modelling community
The term “Integrated Assessment Model” (IAM) defines a range of modelling approaches that represent
interactions between global energy, industry, land-use, and earth systems with a view on exploring possible
pathways to mitigate climate change. They typically consider long timeframes to at least 2100, with 5-year
to 10-year timesteps, and some regional disaggregation of the world. Most IAMs explicitly capture possible
scenarios of technology adoption, potentially including different forms of DACCS technology, often with
exogenous (or in some cases endogenous) characterisation of technology learning over time.
IAMs are arguably the most influential quantitative tools with respect to global climate change mitigation
analyses, largely due to their role within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For
example, more than 1000 IAM scenarios from more than 30 models featured in the 5th Assessment Report69
of the IPCC, and more than 500 scenarios from 19 models were presented in the more recent IPCC Special
Report on 1.5°C11. Such models can provide decision-support to those setting global ambition on climate
change mitigation, alongside providing the ability to investigate a myriad of policy, technology and other
issues. For example, and of relevance to the present study, is that IAMs have been used to investigate
differences between scenarios with and without CCS70.
In the past decade, some IAMs have been applied to consider the prospects for DACCS technology. This
began with Chen and Tavoni (2013)71 who studied DACCS potential using the WITCH model, finding
potential for a very substantial 37GtCO2/year capacity, spurring further interest in the technology. This was
followed by Fuss et al (2013), Marcucci et al (2017)72, Strefler et al (2018)73, Hilaire et al (2019)74 and
Realmonte et al (2019)75, most of which also communicated a high potential for DACCS. These studies
relied heavily on very few sources of DAC technoeconomic characterisation, usually stemming from APS
(2011)76 with subsequent updates and optimisations in Mazzotti et al (2013)83 and Zeman (2014)77.
Given the potential for DACCS found in recent IAM studies, it is important for the community have access
to a high quality techno-economic characterisation that reflects the latest knowledge. One important reason
why this is true is due to the potential impact of DACCS in shaving temperature overshoot in mitigation
scenarios, and moreover producing a possible change in the risk profile of DACCS. The latter point is
important because to date DACCS is often seen as relatively high risk due to the possibility that it might
incentivise a slowdown of near-term mitigation on the assumption that DACCS will become available late
this century, but this may not transpire.
This chapter sets out recent analyses in the literature with respect to the techno-economic characteristics
of DACCS technology and presents a synthesis of the new work presented in this report as an updated
representation for consideration in future IAM studies. The following sub-sections set out the techno-
economic parameters for DACCS, followed by a short discussion of considerations and assumptions
regarding uptake constraints and CO2 storage and utilisation. A summary of areas worthy of investigation
in future research is presented in section 7.2.
69 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, 2014.
70 The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology
and climate policy strategies. E. Kriegler, et al., 2014.

71 Direct air capture of CO2 and climate stabilization: A model-based assessment. Chen, C., Tavoni, M., 2013.
72 The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and the role of direct air capture. Marcucci, A.,
Kypreos, S. & Panos, E., 2017.

73 Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs.
Strefler J., et al., 2018.

74 Negative emissions and international climate goals—learning from and about mitigation scenarios. Hilaire, J., et al.,
2019.
75 An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Realmonte, G., et al., 2019.
76 Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: a technology assessment for the APS panel on public affairs. APS, 2011.
77
Reducing the cost of Ca-based direct air capture of CO2. Zeman F., 2014.
38
Final Report
5.1 Techno-economic parameters for DACCS

The literature contains a very wide range of estimates of the overall cost of DACCS technology, ranging
from US$30-$1000/tCO2 according to Sanz-Pérez et al (2016)78. Moreover, cost estimates are generally
disputed in the literature, with Ishimoto (2017)79 noting that estimates from those associated with industry
tend to be lower than those from independent academic sources, but also recognising that either of these
viewpoints could be correct.
On the high-cost side, examples such as Pritchard (2015)80 and Ranjan and Herzog (2011)81 produced
sceptical analyses of DACCS usually above $500/tCO2 based on thermodynamic arguments. Conversely,
on the low-cost side the pace of technological development and optimised design are cited to justify costs
as low as $30/tCO282, though more often in the range of $100 - $300/tCO2.
A key reference source for techno-economic data for liquid DACCS in recent IAM-based studies has been
APS (2011)76 which arrived at costs of approximately $600/tCO2 including financing costs and energy costs.
Mazzotti et al (2013)83 subsequently optimised the APS (2011)76 system, down to $520/tCO2. This was then
further optimised by Zeman (2014)77 pushing cost down further to $310/tCO2. An overall summary of
techno-economic assumptions in selected recent IAM studies that included DACCS is presented in Table
6, with the APS (2011) study for reference.
According to Fuss (2018)12 the primary cost drivers of DACCS relate to (1) capital cost, (2) energy costs
for capture and regeneration, and (3) sorbent loss and maintenance. The following sub-sections deal with
these areas and add some further considerations that are important for energy systems and integrated
assessment modelling.
78 Direct air capture of CO2 from ambient air. Sanz-Perez et al., Chem. Rev. 116, 19, 11840–11876, 2016.
79 Putting costs of direct air capture in context. Ishimoto Y., et al., FCEA Working Paper Series: 002, 2017.
80 Thermodynamics, economics and systems thinking: what role for air capture of CO2? Pritchard C., 2015.
81 Feasibility of air capture. Manya Ranjan, Howard J. Herzog, 2011.
82 Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air. Lackner, K., 2009.
83 Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: optimization of a two-loop hydroxide carbonate system using a
countercurrent air-liquid contactor. Mazzotti, M., Baciocchi, R., Desmond, M.J. et al., 2013.
39
Final Report
Table 6: Summary of techno-economic representation of DACCS in selected published IAM studies to 2020
Chen and Tavoni
APS (2011) Fuss et al (2013) Marcucci et al (2017) Strefler et al Realmonte et al (2019) Realmonte et al (2019)
(2013)
Liquid DAC Liquid DAC Liquid DAC (2018) Liquid DAC Solid DAC
Liquid DAC
Cost (CAPEX inc. $469 / tCO2 realistic $470 / tCO2 realistic - - - High: $300 / tCO2 High: $350 / tCO2
financing costs plus $349 / tCO2 optimistic $350 / tCO2 optimistic Low: $180 / tCO2 Low: $200 / tCO2
OPEX exc. energy) from APS (2011) Floor: $100/ tCO2 Floor: $50/ tCO2
6%pa/0.06 learning 6%pa/0.06 learning
Cost (CAPEX inc. - - $550 / tCO2 from $600 / tCO2 $430-$570 / tCO2 - -
financing costs plus APS (2011) (ref Chen & Tavoni 2013) (exact cost basis
OPEX inc. energy and reducing to $200 / tCO2 not stated)
CO2 T&S)
Cost (CAPEX exc. $110 / tCO2 realistic - - - - - -
financing costs) $150 / tCO2 optimistic
Cost (CAPEX inc. $350 / tCO2 realistic $350 / tCO2 realistic - - - - -
financing costs) $260 / tCO2 optimistic $260 / tCO2 optimistic
Cost (OPEX exc. $119 / tCO2 realistic $120 / tCO2 realistic - - - - -
energy costs) $89 / tCO2 optimistic $90 / tCO2 optimistic
Energy consumption 6.1GJ / tCO2 8.1GJ / tCO2 thermal - 8.1GJ - 5GJ / tCO2 - High: 8.1GJ/tCO2 High: 7.2GJ/tCO2
assumed at 75% eff 1.8GJ / tCO2 electric thermal thermal, 1.8GJ/tCO2 thermal, 1.1GJ/tCO2
(8.1GJ / tCO2) 1.8GJ / tCO2 electric electric electric
thermal Low: 5.3GJ/tCO2 Low: 4.4GJ/tCO2
1.8GJ / tCO2 electric thermal, 1.3GJ/tCO2 thermal, 0.6GJ/tCO2
electric electric
Lifetime 20 years depreciation - - - - 20 years 15 years
Storage capacity - 1002 – 1825 GtCO2 - 1660 GtCO2 from - 9,000 – 11,000 GtCO2
from Hendriks (2004) Hendriks (2004)
Availability 88.9% - - - - - -
Start year - 2050 – 2065 (in - 2060 (input) 2030 (input) ~2050 (in results) ~2050 (in results)
results)
Constraints - DAC maximum 70% - - - 20% annual growth rate, 20% annual growth rate,
of all CCS 30GtCO2/year NETs 30GtCO2/year NETs
limit, NG use with 95% limit, NG use with 95%
capture rate capture rate
*Reported figures are as per related publications, and therefore readers should consult that respective papers for details of assumptions related to each.
40
Final Report
5.1.1 Capital cost

The IAM literature has largely focused on the liquid DACCS option to date, with only Realmonte et al
(2019))75 also considering solid DACCS systems. For liquid DACCS, the capital cost reported in the APS
(2011)76 study was $480m for a 1MtCO2/year plant. Following an established Chemical Engineering
methodology for overall cost estimation, this was then multiplied by a factor of 4.5-6.0 to arrive at $2.2-
$2.9b total installed cost, equating to $110-$150/tCO2. Financing costs at 7%p.a. are then added to these
figures to arrive at a range of $260-$350/tCO2.
The optimisation of the APS design in Mazzotti et al (2013)83 reduced the capital cost to $450m, thereby
making installed cost $2.0-$2.7b, which equates to $100-$135/tCO2, again net of financing costs. Zeman
(2014)77 also proposed an alternative design of the same technology, though using plastic packing material,
and arrived at a substantially reduced capital cost of $305m, leading to installed cost of $1.37b-$1.83b
($68-$92/tCO2) net of financing costs. In the case of Zeman (2014), financing costs bring total capital costs
to $165/tCO2, using the same charge rate as Mazzotti et al (2013).
It should be noted that DACCS costs used in most IAM studies have included financing costs, which is an
assumption that should be reflected upon in light of IAM structure to ensure avoidance of any double
counting of these financing costs, and to ensure comparability of costs within individual models (i.e. are
financing costs included for all technologies across the model on an equitable basis, using an appropriate
cost of capital?).
Table 7: DACCS capital costs stated during research for this study for a 1 MtCO2/year plant
FOAK Liquid NOAK Liquid FOAK Solid NOAK Solid
Capital cost for 1 MtCO2/year

1200 600-70084 1129 626
plant ($m)
Capital cost ($/tCO2 captured) 40 20-23 125 28
Capital cost inc. financing

($/tCO2 captured) and 126 (10%) 41-48 (5%) 204 (10%) 50 (5%)
associated cost of capital
Capital costs estimated in this study are presented in Table 7. This study has also noted that solid DACCS
systems may entail lower overall cost for smaller scale systems than liquids. In this case, for a 100
ktCO2/year plant, solid DACCS capital cost was estimated at $31-$141/tCO2 (NOAK-FOAK). While these
costs are relatively high due to lack of the economies of scale of the 1 MtCO2/year systems, reduced further
costs (e.g., energy, sorbent, etc) result in lower overall cost relative to equally small liquid DACCS systems.
Therefore, overall, DACCS capital costs in this study are generally significantly lower than those used in
IAM studies in the literature, for example with NOAK capital costs for liquid systems at approximately half
the value presented in Zeman (2014).
Furthermore, in many IAMs regional capital cost variations are taken into account. This is often done using
regional cost multipliers to scale up or down overnight capital costs. For the case of DACCS no literature
evidence on these factors has been located in this study, and indeed it has been shown that difference in
technology costs by region varies between IAMs, with some showing lower capital cost in developing
countries, and some showing higher85. As such, no regional variation of cost has been estimated in this
study. Those concerned with regional variation in capital cost should note that 17.9% of total direct field
costs is labour15 for liquid DACCS plants, and variations in labour costs by country can be sourced from
84 Representing 5-7 doubling of the total deployed capacity starting from initial large-scale plants. These costs may be
achieved earlier than 2050 if DACCS deployment reaches very high levels.
85 Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated
assessment models. Krey et al., 2019.
41
Final Report
the International Labour Organisation statistics on wages database, in this case using the “Construction”
economic activity category86. Likewise, where variation in financing costs are needed for a model, these
may be sourced following the methodology outlined in Ondraczek et al (2015)87, where results by country
are listed in the supplementary material of that article. As an illustrative example, if one assumes a 50%
reduction in wage costs where 17.9% of total direct field costs are labour, one would expect the capital cost
to decrease to 91% of the values reported in this report. Conversely, if financing costs were to increase due
to local factors, from the 5% (NOAK) assumed in this report to 28% representing a high case in Brazil, the
impact on finance-inclusive capital cost would be an increase of more than 3-fold to $177/tCO2 for a 1
MtCO2/year liquid DACCS plant.
5.1.2 Energy consumption

As most IAMs endogenously calculate energy prices, and take energy consumption as the exogenous input
data, we focus on energy consumption here. As with capital costs, energy consumption has been estimated
and re-estimated or optimised within the literature in several contributions in the past decade.
For liquid DAC, the APS (2011) and subsequent re-design studies have been used most prominently in
IAM studies. The APS study found a thermal consumption of 6.1 GJ/tCO2 (which they translated to 8.1
GJ/tCO2 natural gas demand due to 75% conversion efficiency), and 1.8 GJ/tCO2 electricity needs. Mazzotti
et al (2013) presented optimised design that could up to halve the APS fan electricity consumption, and
Zeman et al (2014) arrived at 6.7 GJ/tCO2 thermal needs, similar to the APS study. Realmonte et al (2019)
used the APS figures as a “high estimate” for liquid DAC energy, and also used a “low estimate” of 5.3
GJ/tCO2 thermal needs and 1.3GJ/tCO2 electricity needs based on Keith et al (2018)15.
For solid DAC, the National Academy of Sciences (2019)22 found a consumption of 3.4-4.8 GJ/tCO2 thermal
and 0.55-1.1 GJ/tCO2 electricity (their “mid-range” estimates). This study also produced a useful graphic
(Figure 5.5 in that document) comparing estimates in the literature, which were generally in the range of
0.5 - 2.0 GJ/tCO2 for electricity, and generally in the range of 2.0 – 9.0 GJ/tCO2 for thermal needs. In IAM
analyses, only Realmonte et al (2019)75 characterises solid DAC, and used a high estimate of energy needs
at 1.1GJ/tCO2 electrical and 7.2 GJ/tCO2 thermal based on Gebald (2011)88, and a low estimate of
0.6GJ/tCO2 electrical and 4.4 GJ/tCO2 thermal based on Ishimoto (2017)79.
Table 8: Energy consumption estimates reported in research for this study for liquid and solid
DACCS. Figures in brackets for solid DACCS are an electric-only configuration where heat is
supplied to the process via a heat pump with COP of ~2.5. Thermal energy required for liquids and
solids are at ~900⁰C and ~100⁰C, respectively.
DACCS89 DACCS89 DACCS DACCS
Thermal energy cons.
6.8 0 10.8 (-) 4.9 (-)
(GJ/tCO2)
Electrical energy cons.
2.2 – 3.7 7.2 – 9 2.3 (6.6) 1.6 (3.6)
(GJ/tCO2)
In research for the present study, energy consumptions were estimated to be as presented in Table 8. The
reader should note that much of this data is sourced from companies developing DACCS systems. These
are largely in line with those in the literature, with the slight exception of solid DACCS, where electricity
consumption is at the higher end of the reported ranges in the literature, and the addition of the possibility
of electricity-only solid DACCS systems.
86 International Labour Organization, Statistic on wages [accessed 11.06.2021]- Link

87 WACC the dog: the effect of financing costs on the levelized cost of solar PV power. Ondraczek J., et al., 2015.
88 Amine-based nanofibrillated cellulose as adsorbent for CO2 capture from air. Gebald et al., 2011.
89 Publicly available data not used in energy cost modelling in other parts of this report.
42
Final Report
5.1.3 Operating and maintenance costs

For liquid DACCS systems chemical costs do not significantly impact the economics, with approx. 1% of
Calcium purged each cycle15 (3.5 kg/tCO222) and approx. 0.4 kg/tCO222of potassium hydroxide. In this study
CaCO3 was assumed to cost $250/t and KOH $700/t based on recently observed market prices. In addition
to materials costs, liquid DACCS O&M cost (i.e. labour and parts) reported during research for this study
were $50-$60/tCO2 for FOAK and $25-$30/tCO2 for NOAK15, which for FOAK is slightly higher than those
previously reported in the literature of $42/tCO2.
For solid DACCS, adsorbent costs form a much more significant part of the overall cost. Adsorbent
consumption is also significant, where according to Deutz and Bardow (2021)90 it is approximately
7.5kg/kgCO2 in the case of FOAK, dropping to 3kg/kgCO2 in the case of NOAK. Adsorbent cost from
National Academy of Sciences is approximately $50/kgCO222, though it is recognised that there is
substantial room for innovation with respect to solid sorbents, and as such costs may reduce in future. After
discussions with Climeworks during stakeholder engagement, $180/tCO2 captured was assumed to
represent adsorbent costs of FOAK plants. A 60% reduction to $72/tCO2 is then assumed for the NOAK
stage in 2050s. Furthermore, an ambitious case of $31.50/tCO2 has been proposed by Climeworks as the
long-term goal. Finally, for solid DACCS systems, regular labour (i.e. operation) is estimated at $7/tCO2,
whereas regular maintenance is estimated at 3% of capital cost.
As for the labour component of capital cost discussed above, labour costs vary by region. Variation in labour
costs by region can be estimated using the International Labour Organisation statistics on wages database,
using an appropriate economic activity category86 such as manufacturing.
5.1.4 Lifetime, availability, and cost of capital

Very few IAM studies discuss system lifetime or cost of capital for financing for DACCS technology. The
original APS (2011) study assumed 20-year depreciation and a 7% cost of capital for calculation of financing
costs. Mazzotti et al (2013) assumed recovery of fully built-up capital cost of 5% per year depreciation (i.e.
20 year economic lifetime) plus 7% per year return on investment, and Zeman (2014) followed the same
charge rate as Mazzotti. Realmonte et al (2019) assumed 20-year lifetime for liquid DAC, and 15-year
lifetime for solid DACCS.
Likewise, very few IAM studies stated availability assumptions, but APS (2011) quoted 89%, which has
largely been adopted. During the course of this study consultation with Carbon Engineering suggested that
Liquid DACCS FOAK availability of 89%, and NOAK availability of 92-95%. Solid DACCS in this study has
availability of 90%.
Table 9: Lifetimes, plant availability, and costs of capital used in this study
DACCS DACCS DACCS DACCS
Lifetime (years) 30 30 10 25
Plant availability 90% 90% 90% 90%
Cost of capital 10% 5% 10% 5%
Table 9 shows the technology lifetime assumed in this study, which are substantially above those previously
assumed in the literature, with both liquid and solid DACCS remaining operational for 10 further years,
specifically 30 years for liquid DACCS and 25 years for solid DACCS, which were suggested by Carbon
Engineering and Climeworks, respectively. Table 9 also shows cost of capital assumed here for calculation
of financing costs presented above, and the reader should bear in mind the regional variation in financing
costs described above in the Capital Cost section.
90Life-cycle assessment of an industrial direct air capture process based on temperature–vacuum swing adsorption.
Deutz, S., Bardow, A., 2021.
43
Final Report
5.1.5 Water and land use

Water consumption and land use requirement are often cited with respect to DAC systems, and may be
important for IAM studies that consider land use explicitly and/or consider water nexus issues in climate
change mitigation scenarios.
For liquid DAC water use is 4.7 t/tCO2 at 20⁰C and 64% relative humidity15, and for solid DAC this reduces
to 1.6 t/tCO275. There is high uncertainty as to water requirements for solid DAC, which depends on the
specific selection of technology. In some cases, studies have noted that water may even be generated
depending on the regional temperature and relative humidity.
Land use also differs between the DACCS technologies, though is widely recognised to be orders of
magnitude lower than other NETs options such as afforestation and BECCS, which require large land area
for related vegetation. The land area required for liquid DACCS at 1 MtCO2/year capacity is reported to be
6 acres for direct use, increasing to 1730 acres to include spacing between the units22, which is a figure
challenged by some stakeholders. In this study Carbon Engineering’s estimates for a 1 MtCO2/year plant
of ~100 acres (FOAK) and ~60 acres (NOAK) are used. Solid DACCS is assumed to require 64.6 acres for
the DAC unit at 1Mt/year capacity for FOAK, reducing to 19.4 acres for NOAK, both based on Deutz and
Bardow (2021)90.
5.2 Estimates of DAC potential and uptake constraints

Non-IAM studies that estimated the potential of DACCS generally envisage that it is significant, potentially
with no meaningful technical constraints, given low and non-arable land requirements, and potential to co-
locate with low-cost energy and/or CCS infrastructure and storage sites. Most such studies put the potential
in the range of 10-15 GtCO2/year. For example, Smith et al (2016)59 estimated 13.2GtCO2/year in 2100,
Fuss (2017)91 up to 12.1GtCO2/year in 2100, while McLaren (2012)92 estimates 10 GtCO2/year as soon as
2030-2050. The counterpoint to these are studies such as Pritchard (2015)80 which is doubtful of any
meaningful potential at all, largely based on thermodynamic arguments.
Despite potentials generally being seen as significant, many IAM studies to date have estimated even
greater potential and uptake. For example, the IAM modelling in Marcucci et al (2017)72 allowed DAC uptake
beginning from 2060, and the technology was strongly adopted, ultimately reaching approximately 40
GtCO2/year by 2100. Similarly, Realmonte et al (2019)75 assumed a 20% p.a. growth rate based on
comparison of similar technologies and established a 30 GtCO2/year capacity limit (on all NETs combined),
which the model appears to reach by late century (though only cumulative DACCS removals is reported).
Realmonte et al (2019) also investigate a scenario that limits capacity to 3 GtCO2/year. In the results of this
study a maximum scale up rate of 1.5 GtCO2/year is observed (where input growth limit assumption is
based on analysis of a range of similar technologies), all during late century, after 2070, leading to
cumulative DACCS to 2100 of approximately 800 GtCO2 stored in both of the two IAMs applied.
Based on the review of uptake characterisation in IAMs above, it is apparent that estimates used regarding
constraints on rate of uptake and total capacity limits for DAC have been relatively coarse, with only
Realmonte et al (2019)75 justifying assumptions. While no well-substantiated evidence on this topic was
found in the literature review for this study, the following paragraphs discuss some of the main areas of
relevance to the debate.
Siting factors may be an important consideration with respect to maximum feasible uptake rates and any
capacity limits. Goldberg et al (2013)93 noted opportunities for co-location with CO2 storage and low-cost
renewables to power the systems, either of which may be important for viability.
The possibility of siting DACCS with CO2 storage sites may avoid the need for the extensive CO2
transport infrastructure, which has in the past led to questions around the feasibility of some CCS-
91 The 1.5°C target, political implications, and the role of BECCS. Fuss S., 2017.
92 A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions technologies. McLaren, D., 2012.
93 Co-Location of air capture, subseafloor CO2 sequestration, and energy production on the Kerguelen Plateau.
Goldberg, D., et al., 2013.
44
Final Report
focused global mitigation scenarios. The available literature on this point is sparse, as credible assessments
of storage capacity by location are only available for some regions. Estimates of storage capacity by region
do exist, for example Hendricks et al (2004)94, and are becoming more nuanced. IAM practitioners should
monitor such literature for more detailed estimates of storage availability and adjust model inputs
accordingly. Importantly storage aspects may impact regional uptake of DACCS (assuming global trade of
CO2 for storage does not become widespread), with some regions without historical oil and gas
developments may struggle to access easier or lower cost storage.
Co-location of DACCS with renewable or other zero (or negative) carbon energy is another
important factor that may accelerate or hinder uptake. This does not necessarily create challenges for
IAMs, most of which have relatively sophisticated characterisations of regional renewables potentials, for
example based on Chu et al (2020)95, or opportunities for BECCS and nuclear power. However, as
highlighted below, further research on overall spatial mapping of DACCS potential, cognisant of access to
renewables, CO2 storage, and water and land requirements would be a worthwhile exercise to refine
potential uptake estimates in IAMs.
An alternative destination of CO2 captured by DAC is CO2 utilisation, which may be an important early
market for DAC technology where CO2 storage options are not available, or if simply because it is the best
option in a particular situation. For example, captured CO2 may be used in greenhouses or beverage
manufacture (noting that most of these options do not result in permanent sequestration, but may displace
other fossil sources of CO2). CO2 utilisation is generally seen as thermo-dynamically challenging, though
could play a role in the manufacture of synthetic fuels for sectors that are otherwise extremely difficult to
decarbonise, such as aviation. For example, in the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives’ scenario17 with
limited CO2 storage, CCU reaches 684 MtCO2 by 2060. Furthermore, a very ambitious estimate of future
CCU market potential96 is 1-7 GtCO2 by 2030. DAC can provide the CO2 source for such facilities.
Finally, water consumption (and humidity) of siting may be important. A key advantage of DACCS,
relative to BECCS/afforestation options, is the lack of necessity for arable land, but water requirements may
also limit DACCS potential in some non-arable (e.g., desert) locations. This may limit DACCS sites to non-
arable land without food related water constraints or put DACCS in competition with arable land uses.
Further research is required to estimate land potential via consideration of these factors, though it should
be noted that as the footprint of DACCS is small relative to measures such as afforestation and BECCS,
land constraints are unlikely to be a genuine concern in terms of impact on overall DACCS uptake (i.e. from
a land-use perspective DACCS will always be better than other NETs, making it straight forward to justify
displacing a small amount of these technologies to accommodate DACCS).
5.3 Policy implications for IAMs

Given the high potential of DACCS discussed above, and the reducing estimates of cost over time (including
those within this study), it is likely that IAM-based studies will continue to favour the technology and project
strong uptake in global mitigation scenarios. It is therefore important that modellers are aware of policy
implications of model results, framing of modelling results, and the possible need for consideration of policy
or financing related constraints on uptake.
Based on recent IAM studies, a key insight has been the potential of DACCS technology to delay near-term
climate change mitigation action on the basis that DACCS technology will materialise late-century to
balance the carbon budget. Of course, this optimism may prove to be poorly founded, and the technology
may not materialise or may have differing cost or performance credentials. The risks of this outcome have
been pointed out in most IAM based studies, from Chen and Tavoni (2013)71 through to Realmonte et al
(2019)75. These studies have differing lenses on the implications of such an outcome, with the former noting
94 Global carbon dioxide storage potential and costs. Hendriks, C. et al., 2004.
95 A geographic information system-based global variable renewable potential assessment using spatially resolved
simulation. Cheng-Ta, C., Adam, H., 2020.
96 Article Link
45
Final Report
benefits for fossil-intensive economies while the latter focused on the risk of technology failure leading to
shortfall on the Paris Agreement targets.
Given that this issue is apparent to relevant policymaking and financing stakeholders, it is plausible that
emerging policy instruments and financing treatment will seek to support DACCS in a way that ensures no
detriment to near-term mitigation action, for instance by having separate CO2 mitigation and removal
targets. While each IAM may represent related policy instruments differently, some possibilities are
ensuring Paris Agreement compliant uptake of non-DACCS mitigation measures in the near- to medium-
term, for example via related constraints or modelling targeted financial policy instruments to support such
uptake. In essence, IAM approaches to policy implementations should support innovation in DACCS,
without undermining near- to medium-term mitigation that has the potential to meeting Paris Agreement
targets even if DACCS does not materialise.
5.4 Overall summary of DACCS parameters for IAM modelling

Table 10 presents a summary of the information above. As noted in the literature, an extremely wide range
of estimates of cost exist, and a significant portion of reference sources are from or closely affiliated with
companies developing DACCS technology. Demonstrably independent sources tend to estimate higher
costs than other sources.
Table 10: Summary of DACCS techno-economic parameters for a 1 MtCO2/year plant for use in
energy systems and integrated assessment modelling. Primary numbers outside brackets are those
derived from this study, largely based on industry sources, and should be interpreted as more
ambitious estimates of potential costs and performance. Figures in brackets in each cell represent
the authors’ judgement of literature-based estimates of potential costs and performances, with
some cases being unknown due to far too few reference sources being available or being from
sources affiliated with industry.
Capital cost for 1 c
MtCO2/year plant ($m) 1200 (2000) 600-70084 (1400) 1129 (U) 626 (626 )
Learning cost reduction 10-15%
Labour and maintenance c c c
cost ($/tCO2) 50-60 (42 ) 25-30 (30 ) 26.7 (U) 17.9 (30 )
Lifetime (years) 30 (20) 30 (25) 10 (10) 25 (15)
a a
Availability (%) 89% (U) 92-95% (90%) 90% (U) 90% (90%)
Thermal energy use a a b c b c
(GJ/tCO2 captured) 6.8 (U) 0 (8.1) 10.8 (7.2 ) 4.9 (4.4 )
Electricity use (GJ/tCO2 a a b c b c
captured) 2.2 – 3.7 (U) 7.2 – 9 (1.8) 2.3 (1.1 ) 1.6 (0.6 )
Solvent/sorbent cost c c c c
($/tCO2 captured) $4 (1 ) $3 (1 ) 180 (350 ) 31.5-72 (150 )
a
Solvent/sorbent use ~5kg ~3kg KOH+CaCO3
(kg/tCO2 captured) a Not provided
KOH+CaCO3 (3.5 kg/tCO2 CaCO3, Not provided (3)
(7.5)
(unknown) 0.4 kg/tCO2 KOH)
Oxygen use (kgO2/tCO2 a a
500 (U) 0 (0) - (-) - (-)
captured)
Water use (tH2O/tCO2 a a c c
~2-4 (U) ~1-2 (4.7) 1.6 (1.6-12 ) 1.6 (1.6-12 )
captured)
a c a c c c
Land area (acres) ~100 (100 ) ~60 (60 ) 65 (65 ) 19 (19 )
a- Data provided by Carbon Engineering but not used in modelled results in other parts of this report (where it was substituted with
confidential data).
b- An electricity-only variant is also reported for solid DACCS, requiring 6.6 GJ/tCO2 captured (FOAK) & 3.6 GJ/tCO2 captured (NOAK).
c- Indicates too few independent references sources available for reliable estimation, with literature values reported in some cases.
Use of these values in IAMs should be treated with caution.
U- Cases being unknown due to far too few reference sources being available or being from sources affiliated with industry.
46
Final Report
6. Global policy review & suggestions to support DACCS deployment

This section aims to understand current direct and indirect global policy support for DACCS, as well as
future policy recommendations which may accelerate DACCS deployment at climate relevant scales.
Outputs of this section are drawn from the literature23,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105 and extensive discussions
with stakeholders.
6.1 Key barriers, risks, and limitations for DACCS deployment

Before identifying existing and potential policy support for DACCS, it is important to understand the major
barriers or risks for investors or project developers which may prevent DACCS from achieving large-scale
deployment. Table 11 below lists some of the major barriers identified through the literature review and
discussions with stakeholders. Future policy or actions should aim to remove or reduce these barriers.
Table 11: List of major barriers and risks for large-scale DACCS deployment
Barriers/risks Description
• DACCS still needs to be demonstrated at large-scale and some DACCS
Innovation and technologies or components are at early R&D stages, requiring further
demonstration innovation support. Future performance improvements are contingent upon
continued R&D.
• DACCS requires external CO2 T&S infrastructure with high upfront capital
CO2 transport investment, thus small, singular DACCS projects may struggle to justify
and storage investment in dedicated infrastructure and currently existing CO2 T&S
infrastructure is limited in availability.
• High upfront capital requirements (Capex) and lack of consistent and sufficient
returns for removing carbon from air (lack of Opex recovery).
• Negative emissions are currently not valued in many policy mechanisms and
Financial
CO2 accounting frameworks.
• DACCS is currently significantly more expensive than many emissions
reduction / removal options.
• Lack of regulatory and accounting frameworks around monitoring and
Accounting
verification can create barriers to deployment of DACCS.
• Risk of governments discontinuing policy support.
Policy • Requirements to create innovative policies for DACCS as most existing policies
for CCS are not likely to be sufficient for, or applicable to, DACCS.
• Potentially very high long term CO2 leakage liabilities faced by storage
companies.
• Cross-chain risks, where failure in either the capture or the storage business
Other
may affect the other.
• Limited qualified workforce for DACCS and CO2 T&S supply chains.
• Lack of knowledge of DACCS and NETs among the public and policymakers.
97 Lessons and perceptions: adopting a commercial approach to CCS liability. GCCSI, 2019.
98 Policy priorities to incentivise large scale deployment of CCS. GCCSI, 2019.
99 Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) policy options. Vivid Economics, 2019.
100 Options for supporting carbon dioxide removal. New Climate Institute, 2020.
101 Policy positions of Negative Emissions Platform- Link.
102 Policies for the sixth carbon budget and net zero. UK Climate Change Committee, 2020.
103 Recommendations for DAC research, development, and demonstration. Bipartisan Policy Center, 2020.
104 European Union policy playbook: negative emissions technologies. Breakthrough Energy, 2021.
105 Future role of CCS technologies in the power sector. Report for IEAGHG by Element Energy, 2020.
47
Final Report
Box 4: Public perception and acceptance of DACCS
Like any technology, public perception/acceptance of DACCS may be a critical factor for its large-
scale deployment or inclusion in decarbonisation roadmaps. Literature around public acceptance of
DACCS is very limited, but a couple of studies can give us an indication of how the public may
perceive DACCS in comparison to other NETs.
For example, a very large public engagement study106 was carried out in the UK to investigate public
attitudes towards combatting climate change. As shown in Figure 28 below, participants supported
inclusion of forests and better forest management (99%), ecosystem restorations (85%), wood in
construction (81%) and soil carbon storage (62%) in a UK net zero future portfolio. Support for both
BECCS and DACCS were limited to 42%. Natural solutions were preferred for their perceived co-
benefits. BECCS and DACCS suffered due to perceived leakage risk, being less natural and
presenting a risk of distracting from emissions reductions.
Another study107 conducted a survey across the UK and the United States, finding that the public in
both countries had somewhat negative attitudes towards NETs because they were perceived to not
be a short-term solution and not form part of an ideal long-term climate portfolio, since they imply
continued emissions elsewhere in the economy. Response to DACCS was particularly muted
because the technology was still relatively unknown.
Although these studies appear to suggest that public acceptance may be a major barrier for DACCS,
we should note that DACCS is still a very novel technology. DACCS developers indicate that they
have not faced any public backlash for their projects so far and some stakeholders highlight the
possibility of synthetic risk bias in these studies. There is a strong belief that further and correct
explanation of the technology, combined with positioning DACCS as a necessary measure to
mitigate the remaining emissions, can improve public perception significantly.
Association of DACCS with certain industries, such as aviation or fossil fuels, may be risky in the
future for its acceptance. Furthermore, as large-scale DACCS facilities are built, land footprint, visual
aesthetics, noise, and other attributes will determine public attitudes towards DACCS, especially in
regions close to population centres.
100% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3%
90% 18% 13% 12% 18% 18%
15%
80%
23% 18% 21%
70%
35%
60% 40%
22% 19%
50%
38% 42%
40% 81%
30% Strongly disagree

50% 35% 31% Disagree
20% 41% Don’t mind/unsure
10% 24% Agree
7% 11% Strongly agree
0%
Forests and Peatland Soil carbon Wood in BECCS DACCS
better forest and wetland sequestration construction
management restoration
Figure 28: Opinion of the public as to whether a given NET should be included as part of the
UK’s decarbonisation strategy (image adopted from Climate Assembly UK).
106 The path to net zero. Climate Assembly UK, 2020.

107 Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Cox, E. et al., 2020.
48
Final Report
6.2 Review of current policy support and future policy recommendations

This section thematically summarises major global existing DACCS policies and future policy
recommendations identified in the literature review and through stakeholder engagement. Since current
DACCS-specific support is extremely limited, key policies or actions supporting CCUS and NETs in general
are also included in the analysis, as they may indirectly incentivise or enable DACCS.
The following sections cover, in order:
1. DACCS research and development policies.
2. DACCS demonstration policies.
3. Financial incentives for DACCS deployment/operation.
4. Regulations surrounding DACCS.
5. Policies to incentivise DAC with carbon utilisation (CCU).
6. Additional supporting policies.
The policies presented as recommendations here are not exhaustive and are not necessarily suggested to
be implemented concurrently.
6.2.1 DACCS research and development

Although DACCS technologies can technically be deployed at scale today, high costs and an absence of
sufficient incentives to remove CO2 from air prevent more facilities from being deployed. Continued R&D
support has the potential to reduce DACCS costs even further through achievements such as materials
performance improvements, advanced process design, and optimisation of DACCS systems.
A major step for DACCS research and development support was the US Energy Act of 2020, which
authorised a total of $447 million to be used in the next 4 years, (financial years 2021-2024), for RD&D of
NETs, including DACCS, BECCS and agricultural options108. Similarly, the UK is completing a £8.6 million
GGR Research and Development Programme (2017-2021), which was supported by the Department for
Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and multiple research councils109.
Unlike the above examples, most current R&D support for DACCS is through general national or
international research and innovation programmes, hence is difficult to track accurately. For example,
Horizon Europe is the EU’s main research and innovation (R&I) programme for funding NETs research,
among many other technologies. Further funding is available in the EU for supporting innovative low-carbon
companies through the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and the European Innovation
Council (EIC), although historically funding directed at NETs has been very low.
Elsewhere in the world DACCS research has been more limited. Zhejiang University in China has a DAC
R&D programme which involves utilisation of captured gas as a fertiliser for crop growth in a greenhouse20.
They operate a small demonstrator plant capturing 10 kgCO2 per day.
R&D support for DACCS and carbon sequestration should significantly grow in the next decade for DACCS
to become a viable technology against climate change. Earmarking a portion of funds within existing or
future R&D programmes for DACCS would be beneficial and send a strong signal of commitment to
stakeholders. Future R&D efforts should also encourage knowledge transfer and international collaboration.
According to the detailed analysis conducted by the US National Academy of Sciences on research
requirements of NETs22, key DACCS R&D priorities are:
• Simulating, synthesizing, and testing new capture chemicals (especially solid adsorbents due to
high impact on solid DACCS costs).
108 Webinar: Emerging CDR opportunities in US legislation by Institute of Carbon Removal Law and Policy- American
University, accessed 31.03.2021- Link
109 NERC Greenhouse Gas Removal Programme- Link
49
Final Report
• Designing, modelling, and testing novel equipment and system concepts, some specifically
targeting renewable integration. Some key areas of focus can be fully electric liquid DACCS
systems, flexible operation, reduction of land and water requirements.
• Establishing independent evaluation for capture chemicals performance testing, characterization,
and validation, as well as creation and management of a public capture chemicals database.
• Scaling capture chemicals synthesis to > 100 kg.
• Continuing CO2 transport and geologic storage R&D for enabling DACCS. Efforts should focus on
reducing seismic risk, increasing accuracy of site characterization, reducing MMV costs, improving
simulation models, assessing and managing risks in compromised systems.
6.2.2 DACCS demonstration

A major barrier for new technologies is the so called “valley of death”, where progress stalls due to difficulty
of bridging the gap between R&D level systems and large-scale fully developed plants. Support and policies
for technology demonstration are essential to avoid the valley of death and acquire enough public
operational data to enable more detailed techno-economic modelling.
As with R&D policies, demonstration support for DACCS has been very limited and is mostly part of general
NETs funding. Some of the notable demonstration policy examples are:
• The US Energy Act of 2020 which will provide grants for FEED studies and large-scale pilot
demonstrations through the $447 million fund. The bill also introduces DAC prizes for pre-
commercial ($15 million) and commercial ($100 million) technologies108.
• The UK’s GHG Removal Innovation Competition which provides £100 million to fund
development of multiple NETs project feasibility studies and a few demonstration plants, including
a focus on DACCS110.
• The Canadian government’s direct investment of CAD$25 million into Carbon Engineering to
demonstrate the company’s emerging DACCS technologies111.
• Australian CCUS Development Fund which will provide AUS $50 million to CCS and CCU pilot
and demonstration projects in the next 3 years, although none is specifically earmarked for DAC112.
• Germany’s CO2 avoidance and use funding directive which will mobilise a total of €585 million
until 2025 for CO2 transport and storage infrastructure around North Sea, CCS, CCU, DACCS and
BECCS projects, particularly in the industry sector113.
• Germany’s support for a pilot synthetic liquid fuels plant which is commissioned by Federal
Ministry of Transport will supply at least 10,000 tonnes of fuel per year and may use CO2 from air.
• Several other EU funds, such as the Innovation Fund and Connecting Europe Facility, which offer
financial support for deploying CCS projects and infrastructure. Although they do not target NETs
specifically, initial DACCS demonstration projects are likely to benefit from these instruments.
Current DACCS demonstration support levels are too low to unlock large-scale deployment in the medium
term. Grants and innovation vouchers for feasibility studies and demonstration projects, creation of
knowledge transfer networks, and pre-commercial procurement programmes are some mechanisms
governments can use to provide demonstration support for DACCS in the future. Furthermore, the US
National Academy of Sciences recommends22 establishing national DACCS test centres to support pilot
plant demonstration projects, developing third-party FEED and economic analysis and maintaining public
record of pilot plant performance.
110 The UK’s GHG Removal Innovation Competition- Link

50
Final Report
6.2.3 Financial incentives

Since DACCS does not offer any other benefits besides carbon removal, reaching climate-relevant scales
requires significant levels of financial support for mass deployment.
A carbon price is one mechanism reflecting the value of avoiding or removing CO2 in an economy. Figure
29 below shows various regional, national, and sub-national carbon price systems around the world114.
Although prices are mostly far lower than required levels to support DACCS (estimated to be $350-
$700/tCO2 in 2020s according to our analysis), they can provide an indication of a government’s
commitment to decarbonisation. For example, EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) prices were around
€40/tonne at the end of Q1 of 2021. Around the world, some of the highest carbon prices (€60-€110) are
observed in Sweden, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, and Finland115. Norway proposes116 to increase its carbon
price from €60 in 2021 to €200 by 2030 while Canada plans117 to increase its carbon tax from $30 to $170
by 2030. However, DACCS or other NETs are currently not recognised in most of these carbon pricing
mechanisms.
Figure 29: Summary of regional, national, and sub-national carbon pricing initiatives114
In addition to general carbon pricing, 3 key policies in the US have emerged as potential drivers for some
initial DACCS projects:
• The 45Q tax credits award tax alleviation worth $35 or $50/tCO2 when CCS (including DACCS) is
used for EOR or dedicated geological storage, respectively. DACCS can directly use this incentive
in conjunction with other US incentives. To qualify, facilities must capture at least 100 ktCO2/year
and start construction before 2026.
• California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) require fuel suppliers in the state to reduce their
carbon intensity over time or purchase credits to make up the difference. LCFS allows DAC facilities
producing synthetic fuels to sell into this market or sell carbon removal credits to fuel suppliers if
DACCS is used for permanent storage. LCFS credits were worth $190-200/tCO2 in early 2021118.
• Buy Clean California Act will require state agencies to purchase construction materials below a
threshold of carbon intensity. CCUS and DACCS can be used to reduce embedded emissions of
these materials, providing a procurement policy support.
114 World Bank Carbon Pricing Dashboard- Link

115 Tax Foundation- carbon taxes in Europe- Link
118 Neste California low carbon fuel standard credit price- Link
51
Final Report
Although these policies are encouraging some DACCS projects, such as the 1 MtCO2/year capacity Carbon
Engineering plant planned to be built in Texas119, enhancements to the 45Q credits are needed to
incentivise DACCS specifically. Potential improvements to the policy include increasing credits awarded to
dedicated geographical storage, reduction of the minimum annual capture limit, extension of the deadline
to start plant construction, and making direct payments to project developers rather than providing tax
credits120.
There are many financial support mechanisms suitable for incentivising large scale DACCS deployment
and countries may choose to adopt one or more of these policies depending on their preferences and
previous experiences. Some key policies aiming to reduce the burden of high upfront capital investments
and reduce cost of capital are:
1. Tradable tax credits based on total upfront capital investment, similar to 48 a/b credits in the US,
2. Loan guarantees or low interest loans
3. Master limited partnerships to reduce cost of capital,
4. Private activity bonds allowing tax exempt financing,
5. Accelerated depreciation increasing short-term tax reduction,
6. Capital support through government grants or direct equity investment,
7. Affordable finance through progressive financing, international financing institutions or export
credit agencies.
Some other policy mechanisms provide financial support proportional to the operations of CO2 captured by
facilities, providing revenues for the DACCS businesses. These are:
1. Inclusion of DACCS in existing ETS or carbon pricing mechanisms.
2. Negative emissions trading scheme with tradeable negative emissions credits serving two
purposes:
a. A GGR obligation scheme with tradable certificates where obligated parties (e.g. fossil
fuel suppliers or emitters) must remove or purchase credits for an increasing proportion of
their total emissions.
b. Voluntary parties may purchase credits to ‘offset’ their emissions.
3. Clean energy standards where utilities would be required to source a portion of their power of fuel
from low-carbon sources. Like California LCFS, DACCS can be awarded credits in this type of a
scheme.
4. Tradable tax credits granted on a $/tCO2 basis with bands specific for DACCS (similar to 45Q
credits in the US).
5. Direct procurement of GGR, where governments would award service contracts to DACCS
projects after competitive bidding.
6. Contract for differences (CfD) linked to a carbon price, where the government guarantees a strike
price to DACCS developers for a period, reflecting the cost of technology. As shown in Figure 30,
the government pays the difference between the strike price and the actual carbon price in the
market if prices are low and vice versa if prices increase substantially.
119
News article- Link
120
Carbon 180, Enhancing and expanding the 45Q tax credit for direct air capture- Link
52
Final Report
Figure 30: Schematic representing the Contract for Differences (CfDs).
The policies listed above would be suitable for the capture businesses, however, separate consideration
should be given to CO2 transport and storage (T&S) companies, which are essential parts of the overall
DACCS supply chain. We are not focusing on policies for CO2 T&S in this study, however, other studies
have covered this topic in greater detail121.
T&S costs can be significantly reduced by situating plants in clusters, oversizing initial infrastructure and
utilising existing assets. CO2 T&S companies are likely to be monopolies in their regions, so state-owned
finance models or using a Regulated Asset Based (RAB) model may be more efficient ways to supporting
them. Under the RAB model, the government closely monitors all of a company’s spending and determines
a fair service charge. These models have been used successful in the UK with monopoly utilities.
Lastly, it is important to recognise the importance of private patient capital and philanthropy in financing
many early-stage technologies, including DACCS. Elon Musk’s $100 million carbon removal competition122,
Bill Gates’ investment in Carbon Engineering123 and many corporate pledges124 made in the recent years
energised the DACCS community and have driven DACCS projects from R&D level to demonstration scale
at a time when most governments were struggling with the Covid-19 crisis. In the future, incentivising and
enabling further private investment and philanthropy should be a priority for governments as a compliment
to public support for DACCS.
6.2.4 DACCS regulations

Regulations and laws around DACCS and CCS are just as important as financial incentives to enable
DACCS deployment. Initial DACCS projects may be greenlit by special bilateral arrangements between
governments and project developers, but once DACCS is rolled-out at large-scale, liability provisions and
compliance with other regulations affect the pace and cost of technology deployment.
At the time of writing, we are not aware of any DACCS specific regulations in the world, as the technology
has not been implemented at large scale yet. Still, regulations and provisions relating to CCS are very
valuable for understanding regulatory maturity of countries, since CCS regulations are essential for the CO2
T&S part of the DACCS value chain. GCCSI’s Legal and Regulatory Indicator125 maps comprehensiveness
of provisions relating to long-term CO2 storage liabilities, ease of CCS applications/permitting and
frameworks around all aspects and phases of a CCS process chain. Band A countries with most developed
CCS regulatory frameworks as of 2018 were Australia, Canada, Denmark, the UK, and the USA. On the
other hand, some countries with high dependence on fossil fuels, such as China, Russia, India, and
121
CO2 transportation and storage business models. Report by Pale Blue Dot for BEIS, 2018.
122
News article- Link
123
News article- Link
124
Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy- Carbon removal corporate action tracker- Link
125
CCS Legal & Regulatory Indicator. GCCSI, 2018.
53
Final Report
Indonesia- performed poorly regarding regulatory development. Short term DACCS opportunities may be
limited in these regions until further frameworks are developed.
Figure 31: GCCSI's global CCS legal and regulatory indicators125
Federal and state governments of Australia, Canada, the US, and the EU have put in place regulatory
provisions addressing different parts of the CCS value chain97. These relate to ownership of the pore space
for CO2 storage, liabilities to be borne during operation, MMV requirements, post-closure (of wells) time
limit for liability transfer to the state, conditions, and scope of liability transfer.
In general, federal level provisions in Canada and the US are under-developed despite strong state level
regulations. Australia has wide ranging federal liability provisions, but there is little in common with state
provisions concerning long-term liability and post-closure stage of storage sites. The European
Commission’s Storage Directive provides the basis of EU wide regulations and allows a degree of flexibility
to member states. Some countries, like the UK, implemented models that go beyond the directive.
In light of the above discussion on regulatory experience from CCS and discussions with DACCS
stakeholders, the following are identified as key steps to allow deployment at climate relevant levels:
• Establishing regulatory consistency (e.g. on CO2 liabilities), especially between neighbouring
states, will facilitate cross border projects in the US.
• Ensuring fair sharing of post-closure CO2 storage liabilities between companies and
governments. Allowing transfer of reasonable post-closure liabilities to the government in a
timely fashion.
• Resolving surface land and pore space ownership issues, mostly faced in Western USA61,
through legal clarification at state and federal level.
• Streamlining and accelerating permitting for DACCS projects, including CO2 storage, to reduce
development timeframes and costs.
• Improving the permitting process for renewables in relevant locations, as well as the required
electricity infrastructure since access to low-cost renewables is essential for DACCS.
• Establishing a robust NETs certification framework, supported by effective measurement,
monitoring and verification (MMV) standards, is needed to improve confidence in carbon
removal and to administer most NETs related policies accurately. International regulatory alignment
on these would enable trading of DACCS credits across borders.
6.2.5 Support through carbon utilisation

As discussed in section 4.2 carbon capture and utilisation (CCU), which may not always result in net carbon
removals, may aid initial market creation for technologies such as DAC, ultimately reducing DACCS costs.
DAC + CCU options such as EOR or cement production may result in various levels of negative emissions,
54
Final Report
but production of chemicals and fuels typically release all the captured CO2 back into the atmosphere, so
are at best net carbon neutral.
CCU is currently supported by general RD&D programmes and policies aiming to reduce carbon intensities
of various products, such as Germany’s new pilot synthetic fuel production plant, California’s LCFS and the
Buy Clean Act as described above. Furthermore, the US Energy Act of 2020 allocates $280 million
specifically for CCU research and establishes a carbon utilisation research centre. Some other policies,
such as the Swiss Aviation carbon tax126, act as an incentive for carbon intensity reduction of aviation fuels,
which may benefit synthetic fuel production from DAC. Additionally, there are some more direct regional
CCU support, such as New York State’s recently announced127 $10 million Carbontech Development
Initiative for carbon-to-value research and commercialisation.
Some policies/actions to further support DAC with CCU are:
• Additional RD&D support for CCU products, including knowledge transfer networks and
coordination of DAC and CCU researchers/developers.
• Creation and maintenance of public CCU product databases to support green procurement
programmes.
• Market creation support for CCU products including:
o Internationally recognised certification of CCU products like cement and synthetic fuels,
including definition and separation of fuels derived from air captured carbon and other
origins.
o Inclusion of DAC credits or DAC-based products in future sustainable fuels policies or clean
product standards.
o Inclusion of DAC driven products in existing and future public procurement programmes,
like California’s Buy Clean Programme or the EU’s Green Public Procurement policy.
o Information campaigns, green labelling schemes and regulations to help with market
creation for carbon tech products.
o Requirements of minimum blends of fuels derived from air captured carbon.
6.2.6 Additional supportive policies

In addition to the policies discussed above, several other key global developments directly or indirectly
enabling DACCS are:
• The US Energy Act 2020, specifically:
o Introduction of a $800 million programme for carbon storage, validation, testing and
demonstration over the next 5 years.
o Establishment of a Carbon Removal Program within US Department of Energy (DOE) with
the goal of advancing NETs.
o Formation of a Carbon Dioxide Removal Taskforce to advise US DOE and prepare a report
on the need and a pathway to achieve carbon removal in the US.
• The UK considering DACCS in its national decarbonisation roadmap. Although no commitments
are made, DACCS is used at scales of 5-15 MtCO2/year by 2050 in three of the five future
pathways128.
• The EU indicating, in its new Circular Economy Action Plan, its interest to develop a robust
regulatory framework for certification of carbon removals by 2023.
• Emergence of several carbon removal marketplaces such as Nori129 and Puro Earth130.
126
A new tax on airplane tickets between CHF 30-120 depending on travel distance- Link
127
News article- Link
128
The sixth carbon budget methodology report. UK Climate Change Committee, 2020.
129
Nori website
130
Puro Earth website
55
Final Report
• Emergence of several carbon removal related NGOs and initiatives such as Carbon 180131,
Negative Emissions Platform132, and UK Carbon Removal Centre133.
Still, many additional policies and actions are needed in the future to address barriers and risks DACCS
faces. Some of the more prominent and direct actions include:
1. Separate targets for CO2 mitigation and removal: For example, a target of 95% emissions
reduction and >5% removal can ensure that pursuing NETs does not distract from or reduce
emissions mitigation efforts. In additional, a target for carbon removal improves the confidence of
technology developers and investors that a country / region is committed to carbon removals at
scale.
2. Securities for leakage: Future certification of carbon removals should address the leakage risk
through requiring financial securities. Provisions for DACCS should be risk-based and may be
integrated with regulations for CCS, i.e. the CCS Directive.
3. Infrastructure and industrial clusters: Besides financial support for national and cross-border
CO2 T&S infrastructure, industrial CCS clusters should be encouraged to incorporate NETs relying
on CCS, such as BECCS and DACCS (where the location is cost-effective).
4. CO2 storage assessments: Additional funding and data sharing around storage site appraisal is
needed to develop storage resources around the world. Establishment of a comprehensive and
transparent global storage database would help this point further.
Other less direct policy support or actions to enable DACCS roll-out are:
1. Governance: Effective governance, directionality and policy integration through national and
international carbon removal institutions.
2. Social considerations: The wider public should be included in NETs discussions; understanding
of the co-benefits and social value should support positive perception and act as an enabler.
3. International cooperation and leadership, especially for MMV standards and cross-border CO2
T&S infrastructure.
4. In countries with favourable conditions for DACCS, inclusion of DACCS in national
decarbonization roadmaps would indicate long-term commitment to the technology and promote
deployment.
5. Skilled workforce training including assessment of current capacity and future skills needs.
6. Supporting further renewables deployment which would allow access to low-cost, low-carbon
energy.
7. National or international carbon markets/trading and support for voluntary offsets. Having a
separate market for carbon removal can allow more accurate representation of NETs prices and
would be particularly useful if removals and mitigation have separate targets so that their prices
can be controlled by their respective markets.
8. Further evidence and independent assessment of DACCS, such as comprehensive life-cycle
assessments and detailed techno-economic models and to fill public data gaps and update
knowledge as the technology evolves.
In conclusion, the main barriers to DACCS deployment today are lack of a sufficient financial value for
carbon removal, further R&D and large-scale demonstration requirements, and need to better inform and
engage with the public. Dedicated DACCS policy support is extremely limited and most current initiatives
to enable DACCS is bundled together with general CCS and NETs support. Notable existing policies are
the 45Q tax credits in the US, California’s LCFS, various R&D and demonstration funds in the US, the UK,
and the EU, as well as relatively well-established CCS regulations in North America, Europe, and Australia.
Key policy priorities of governments wishing to accelerate DACCS deployment in the future should be
131
Carbon 180 website
132
Negative Emissions Platform website
133
UK Carbon Removal Centre website
56
Final Report
providing further dedicated R&D and demonstration funding, developing financial incentives which
represent fair value of achieving negative emissions, and establishing regulatory frameworks to enable
large-scale roll-out DACCS and supporting technologies.
7. Conclusion and recommendations for further work

7.1 Key implications and conclusions
This study improves the current DACCS cost-performance evidence base by synthesising data from the
recent literature and technology developers to explore the economic feasibility of different DACCS
technologies across timescales, capacities, configurations, and numerous global siting factors. It shows
that although DACCS is more expensive than many carbon mitigation and removal options, careful plant
siting and rapid learnings can achieve significantly more competitive DACCS costs.
Compared to other NETs, DACCS has some advantages due to its smaller land footprint and water
consumption, as well as potential for easy scalability. NETs relying on biomass and ecosystems, such as
afforestation, soil carbon storage and BECCS, require significant water and arable land. Other chemical
NETs, such as enhanced weathering, risk changing the chemistry of oceans and rivers. DACCS avoids
many of these limitations as it has a comparatively small land footprint, but does require a sustainable
energy source, geological CO2 storage to operate, and is relatively immature technology with as-yet
unproven deployment potential.
The technoeconomic modelling of base case DACCS configurations (summarised in section 3.5)
showed that the lifecycle emissions associated with DACCS range from 7-17% of the CO2 captured for
FOAK plants and 3-7% for NOAK plants if low carbon energy is used. These are mostly associated with
energy carbon intensities, underlining the importance of access to low-carbon energy. Early DACCS
projects in the 2020s are likely to range from ~$400-$700/net-tCO2 stored when global average solar PV
costs are used, which drop to ~$350-$550/net-tCO2 with low-cost renewables. LCODs for NOAK plants in
the 2050s fall to ~$194-$230/net-tCO2 due to reduced electricity prices, financing costs and upfront capital
investment. For liquid systems, large-scale plants are significantly more cost-effective due to economies of
scale. Solid DACCS costs scale more linearly with size and are likely to be the more cost-effective option
for smaller plants (<100ktCO2/year), with significant potential for cost reduction through innovation. Capex,
electricity prices and solid adsorbent costs are found to be the most influential parameters on costs.
An exploration of key global siting factors on DACCS costs and viability (summarised in section 4.7)
reveals that access to CO2 storage, land and water requirements are not expected to limit global DACCS
potential but may determine where plants are built. CO2 T&S costs are found to be ~6-15% of total LCODs
which may be reduced by $20-$25/tCO2 if plants use shared infrastructure. Energy costs are found to be
as much as 50% of long-term liquid DACCS costs. DACCS costs in the range of ~$150-$200/net-tCO2 may
be achieved in the long-term if very low-cost solar energy is used. However, long-term costs are likely to
be significantly higher than the industry target of $100/tCO2 captured, except under the most ambitious
cost-performance assumptions and favourable conditions. The most favourable regions for DACCS will
have access to excess low-cost & low-carbon power and heat, CO2 storage resources, have strong
commitments to reducing their emissions and have regulatory/policy support for DACCS, CCS and NETs.
In the short-medium term, some ideal locations for DACCS may be parts of North America, Western Europe
(North Sea), Australia, Middle East and Eastern China, and Japan.
To date DACCS representation in IAMs has been relatively simplistic. Despite seemingly large DACCS
deployment potential in existing IAM-based studies, most have focused only on liquid DACCS. Models
necessarily rely on relatively sparse and divergent literature for estimates of DACCS cost. Technical
parameters compiled and developed throughout this study (summarised in Table 10) can be used for
representation of DACCS technologies in future IAM studies. IAM practitioners should consider
differentiating between DACCS technologies and considering multiple plant configurations, including those
running on electricity only and a mix of heat and electricity. Practitioners should also take care to ensure
57
Final Report
consistent treatment of financing costs for all technologies across their models. Furthermore, operating and
labour costs are likely to be region dependent and IAMs can use reference tables to estimate how these
costs would differ between countries. The availability of CO2 storage, renewables, water, and land are key
global siting factors which should be investigated further in IAM parameterisation with regional granularity
to determine the locations with high DACCS viability and ultimately provide a more nuanced view of overall
DACCS potential. Lastly, IAM studies may want to better integrate emerging climate policies, such as
separate targets for emissions reduction and negative emissions, by developing alternative scenario
designs placing constraints on the ability of NETs to accommodate short term GHG overshoots.
Most current DACCS policy support consists of generic RD&D funding, and financial support aimed at
wider NETs or CCS technologies. The US, UK, EU, and Australia are key regions with relatively developed
CCS regulations and R&D and demonstration programmes targeting carbon removal or general CCS
projects. The 45Q tax credits in the US and California’s LCFS are the only financial mechanisms available
for large-scale DACCS projects. The key policy priorities of governments wishing to accelerate DACCS
deployment in the future should be providing further dedicated RD&D funding, developing financial
incentives which represent fair value of achieving negative emissions, and establishing regulatory
frameworks to enable large-scale roll-out DACCS and supporting technologies.
7.2 Recommendations for further work

To further assess the role and potential of DACCS as part of a portfolio of decarbonisation strategies, the
following future work is recommended:
• Further independent engineering analysis of DACCS performance and costs to verify and
support commercial data.
• Expansion of the LCA study to include potential leakage from CO2 T&S infrastructure, the impact
of non-carbon by-products of solvent/sorbent manufacture and energy requirements for mass
production of capture chemicals.
• Demonstrations of a range of DACCS technologies and configurations at scale to provide real-
world data. Since current demonstrators are only at <5 ktCO2/year scales, estimates of large-scale
applications have considerable inherent uncertainties.
• Detailed review of geographical locations and differences, including costs of external factors
as well as siting influence on technical requirements (e.g., water consumption), combined with
further research on overall spatial mapping of DACCS potential, cognisant of access to
renewables, CO2 storage, and water and land requirements to refine potential uptake estimates in
IAMs.
• RD&D on solid sorbents and electric calciners to improve performance and drive down costs.
• Continued R&D on novel DACCS concepts currently at low maturity levels, such as DACCS with
passive air flow.
• Exploration of value and technical feasibility of flexible DACCS systems, including pilots and
wider energy system analysis.
• Better estimates of the potential for roll-out of DACCS systems, considering limitations around
construction, chemical production, CO2 storage site development and renewables roll-out rates.
• Knowledge sharing and collaboration between academia, technology developers and third-party
assessors to make information accessible and accelerate progress.
58
Final Report
8. References
100% clean, renewable energy and storage for everything. Jacobson, M. Z. Cambridge University Press,
2020. https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NatGasVsWWS&coal.pdf
A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions technologies. McLaren, D. Process
Safety and Environmental Protection 90(6), p. 489-500, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.005
A geographic information system-based global variable renewable potential assessment using spatially
resolved simulation. Cheng-Ta, C., Adam, H., Energy 193 116630, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116630
A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Keith et al. Joule (8), p. 1573-1594, 2018.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118302253
Amine-based nanofibrillated cellulose as adsorbent for CO2 capture from air. Gebald et al., Environ. Sci.
Technol. 45, 20, p. 9101–9108, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1021/es202223p
An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Realmonte, G.,
Drouet, L., Gambhir, A. et al., Nat. Commun. 10, 3277, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-
10842-5
Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and
high costs. Strefler J., et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 13 044015, 2018.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aab2ba
Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Smith et al., Nature Climate Change (6),
p.42-50, 2015. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2870
Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air. Lackner, K. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 176, 93–106, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2009-01150-3
Capturing leadership: policies for the US to advance direct air capture technology. Rhodium Group, 2019.
https://rhg.com/research/capturing-leadership-policies-for-the-us-to-advance-direct-air-capture-
technology/
CCS deployment at dispersed industrial sites. By Element Energy for BEIS, 2020.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-capture-usage-and-storage-ccus-deployment-at-
dispersed-sites
CCS legal & regulatory indicator. GCCSI, 2018.
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/legal-regulatory-
indicator-ccs-lri/
CCS policy indicator. GCCSI, 2018. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-
research/ccs-policy-indicator-ccs-pi/
CCS storage indicator. GCCSI, 2018.
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CCS-Storage-Indicator-CCS-SI-
DIGITAL-1.pdf
CDR Primer. J. Wilcox, B. Kolosz, & J. Freeman, 2021. https://cdrprimer.org/
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, 2014.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf
Co-Location of air capture, subseafloor CO2 sequestration, and energy production on the Kerguelen
Plateau. Goldberg, D., et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 13, p. 7521–7529, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es401531y
CO2 transportation and storage business models. Report by Pale Blue Dot for BEIS, 2018.
59
Final Report
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67
7721/10251BEIS_CO2_TS_Business_Models_FINAL.pdf
Cost Analysis of direct air capture and sequestration coupled to low-carbon thermal energy in the United
States. McQueen, N., et al., Environ Sci Technol. 54 (12) p. 7542-7551, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00476
Direct air capture of CO2 and climate stabilization: A model based assessment. Chen, C., Tavoni, M.,
Climatic Change 118, 59–72, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0714-7
Direct air capture of CO2 from ambient air. Sanz-Perez et al., Chem. Rev. 116, 19, 11840–11876, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00173
Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: a technology assessment for the APS panel on public affairs.
APS, 2011. https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf
Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: optimization of a two-loop hydroxide carbonate system using a
countercurrent air-liquid contactor. Mazzotti, M., Baciocchi, R., Desmond, M.J. et al., Climatic
Change 118, 119–135, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0679-y
Enabling the deployment of industrial CCS clusters. By Element Energy for IEAGHG, 2018.
https://ieaghg.org/publications/technical-reports/reports-list/9-technical-reports/960-2018-01-
enabling-the-deployment-of-industrial-ccs-clusters
Energy technology perspectives 2020. IEA, 2020. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-
perspectives-2020
Energy technology perspectives 2020: special report on CCUS. IEA, 2020.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/181b48b4-323f-454d-96fb-
0bb1889d96a9/CCUS_in_clean_energy_transitions.pdf
European Union policy playbook: negative emissions technologies. Breakthrough Energy, 2021.
https://www.breakthroughenergy.org/eu-policy-overview/cross-cutting-policies#anchor-negative-
emissions-technologies-nets
Feasibility of air capture. Manya Ranjan, Howard J. Herzog, Energy Procedia, 4 pp 2869-2876, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.193
Future of solar photovoltaic. IRENA, 2019. https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Nov/IRENA_Future_of_Solar_PV_2019.pdf
Future role of CCS technologies in the power sector. Report for IEAGHG by Element Energy, 2020.
http://documents.ieaghg.org/index.php/s/YKm6B7zikUpPgGA?path=%2F2020%2FTechnical%20Re
ports
Geoengineering potential of artificially enhanced silicate weathering of olivine. Kohler, P., et al., Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 107 (47), p. 20228-20233, 2010.
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/47/20228
Global carbon dioxide storage potential and costs. Hendriks, C. & Crijns-Graus, W. & Bergen, F. 2004.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260095614_Global_Carbon_Dioxide_Storage_Potential_an
d_Costs
Greenhouse gas removal. UK Royal Society, 2018. https://royalsociety.org/topics-
policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/
Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) policy options. Vivid Economics, 2019.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/83
3145/Greenhouse_Report_Gas_Removal_policy_options.pdf
IPCC Special Report Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable
Development. 2018.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf
60
Final Report
Lessons and perceptions: adopting a commercial approach to CCS liability. GCCSI, 2019.
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/adopting-a-commercial-
approach-to-ccs-liability/
Levelised cost of carbon abatement: an improved cost-assessment methodology for a net-zero emissions
world. Friedmann J., et al., 2020. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/file-
uploads/LCCA_CGEP-Report_101620.pdf
Life-cycle assessment of an industrial direct air capture process based on temperature–vacuum swing
adsorption. Deutz, S., Bardow, A. Nat Energy 6, 203–213, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-
00771-9
Life cycle GHG emissions of renewable and non-renewable electricity generation technologies. Ostfold
Research, 2019. https://reinvestproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/OR_RE-INVEST_Life-cycle-
GHG-emissions-of-renewable-and-non-renewable-electricity.pdf
Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global
integrated assessment models. Krey et al., Energy 172, p. 1254-1267, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.131
Natural gas vs. electricity for solvent-based direct air capture. McQueen et al. Front. Clim., 2021.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.618644
Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Fuss et al. Environmental Research
Letters 13 (6), 2018. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f/meta
Negative emissions and international climate goals—learning from and about mitigation scenarios.
Hilaire, J., Minx, J.C., Callaghan, M.W. et al. Climatic Change 157, 189–219, 2019.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02516-4
Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration: a research agenda. National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019. https://doi.org/10.17226/25259.
Net zero by 2050: a roadmap for the global energy sector. IEA, 2021.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/beceb956-0dcf-4d73-89fe-1310e3046d68/NetZeroby2050-
ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector_CORR.pdf
Options for supporting carbon dioxide removal. New Climate Institute, 2020.
https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Options-for-supporting-Carbon-Dioxide-
Removal_July_2020.pdf
Policies for the sixth carbon budget and net zero. UK Climate Change Committee, 2020.
https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policies-for-the-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-and-
Net-Zero.pdf
Policy priorities to incentivise large scale deployment of CCS. GCCSI, 2019.
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/policy-priorities-to-
incentivise-large-scale-deployment-of-ccs/
Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Beerling et al.,
Nature, 583, p. 242-248, 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2448-9
Potential ways the gas industry can contribute to the reduction of methane emissions. Gie and Macrogaz,
2019. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/gie-marcogaz_-_report_-
_reduction_of_methane_emissions.pdf
Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Cox, E.,
Spence, E. and Pidgeon, N. Nature Climate Change (10), p. 744-749, 2020.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0823-z?proof=t
Putting costs of direct air capture in context. Ishimoto Y., et al., FCEA Working Paper Series: 002, 2017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2982422
61
Final Report
Recommendations for DAC research, development, and demonstration. Bipartisan Policy Center, 2020.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/recommendations-for-dac-research-development-and-
demonstration/
Reducing the cost of Ca-based direct air capture of CO2. Zeman F. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 19, p. 11730–
11735, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1021/es502887y
Renewable power generation costs in 2019. IRENA, 2020. https://www.irena.org/-

/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jun/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_2019.pdf
Shipping CO2: UK cost estimation study. By Element Energy for BEIS, 2018.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shipping-carbon-dioxide-co2-uk-cost-estimation-study
Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants. Fasihi et al., Journal of Cleaner Production
224, p. 957-980, 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619307772
Technology readiness and costs of CCS. GCCSI, 2021. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-

content/uploads/2021/04/CCS-Tech-and-Costs.pdf
The 1.5°C target, political implications, and the role of BECCS. Fuss S., Climate Science, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.585
The costs of CO2 storage: post-demonstration CCS in the EU. Zero Emissions Platform, 2010.
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/archive/hub/publications/119816/costs-co2-storage-post-
demonstration-ccs-eu.pdf
The future of hydrogen: seizing today’s opportunities. IEA, 2019.

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/9e3a3493-b9a6-4b7d-b499-
7ca48e357561/The_Future_of_Hydrogen.pdf
The global tree restoration potential. Bastin et al., Science 365 (6448), p. 76-79, 2019.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76
The path to net zero. Climate Assembly UK, 2020.
https://www.climateassembly.uk/recommendations/index.html
The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and the role of direct air capture.
Marcucci, A., Kypreos, S. & Panos, E., Climatic Change 144, 181–193, 2017.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2051-8
The role of direct air capture in mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. C. Beuttler, et al.,
Front. Clim., 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2019.00010
The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global
technology and climate policy strategies. E. Kriegler, et al., Climatic Change 123, 353–367, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7
The sixth carbon budget methodology report. UK Climate Change Committee, 2020.
https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-Methodology-
Report.pdf
Thermodynamics, economics and systems thinking: what role for air capture of CO2? Pritchard C., Yang
A., Holmes P., Wilkinson M., Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Volume 94, p. 188-195,
2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.06.011
WACC the dog: the effect of financing costs on the levelized cost of solar PV power. Ondraczek J.,
Komendantova N., Patt A. Renewable Energy 75, p. 888-898, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.053
World Energy Outlook 2020. IEA, 2019. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019
World Energy Outlook 2020. IEA, 2020. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020
62
Final Report
9. Appendix
9.1 Appendix 1: Liquid and solid DACCS technoeconomic parameters
Table 12 shows the technoeconomic parameters of Carbon Engineering’s liquid DAC technology. The exact
values used in this study cannot be shared due to commercial sensitivity, however the below ranges can
be used as approximates.
Table 12: Public techno-economic data provided by Carbon Engineering
Parameter CE Regenerating Liquid Sorbent DAC

1 Mt/year of Atmospheric
Early Plants Nth Plants and Variants
CO2 Captured
Plant Related
$700-600M (@4-6 doublings in cumulative
Capex ~1,200 Million
plant capacity and 10-15% Learning rate)
Capital Cost Reduction
Learning rate of 10-15% for each doubling of cumulative plant capacity built.
(Learning rate)
Plant Uptime 89% 92-95%
Plant Lifetime 30 years 30 years
Cost of Capital 9-10% 5-7%
Land Area ~100 acres ~60 acres
Embodied Emissions - 0.01 tCO2/tCO2 0.01 tCO2/tCO2
Plant Construction
Energy
100% Renewable Electricity, NG hybrid
Energy Source Renewable Electricity/NG hybrid
option
~2.5-3 MWh/t CO2 total (1.9 MWh NG CO2 ~2-2.5 MWh/tCO2 100% Renewable
Energy Demand
release, Remainder RE) Energy
Location dependent, $25/MWh RE and 10-
Energy Cost Location dependent $10-25/MWh
15$/MWh NG
Upstream Energy ~0.1 tCO2 /tCO2 for locations with low
~0.1 tCO2/tCO2
Emissions upstream energy emissions
Sorbent and Material
Consumables
Sorbent and Chemicals ~5 kg KOH+CaC03/tCO2, 0.5t O2/tCO2 ~3 kg KOH+CaCO3/tCO2
Consumption
Sorbent and Chemicals KOH, CaCO3, Oxygen (for oxyfire NG
KOH, CaCO3, (O2 for NG option)
Used calcination)
~2-4 tH2O/tCO2 depending on site ~1-2 tH2O/tCO2 depending on site
Water Requirement
temperature and humidity temperature and humidity
Operations
Operating and Maintenance ~$50-60/tCO $25-30/tCO2
2
Costs
Levelized Cost of ~$250/tCO2 $150-100/tCO2

Removal*
* Net Atmospheric CO2 removed, including plant embodied emissions, upstream energy and co-captured process
emissions for RE/NG hybrid plants
63
Final Report
Table 13: Solid DACCS data and assumptions used in the model
FOAK
FOAK Heat + NOAK Heat + NOAK Electric
Parameter Units* Electric
Electric Electric Only
Only
Mt/y Atm
Capacity CO2 1 1 1 1
Captured
Plant Related
Capex $ million 1,129134 626135 1,129134 626135
Capex scaling
0.95134 0.95134 0.95134 0.95134
exponent
Plant Uptime % 90%134 90%134 90%134 90%134
Plant Lifetime Years 1022, 135 25134 1022, 135 25134
Cost of Capital % 10%134 5%134 10%134 5%134
Land Area Acres ~6590 ~1990 ~6590 ~1990
Plant Construction kgCO2/
690 690 690 690
Emissions tCO2
Energy
Electricity demand136 MWh/tCO2 0.6490 0.4590 1.8290 1.0190
Heat demand136 MWh/tCO2 3.0190 1.3690 - -
1Mt to 100kt energy &
consumable scaling 1.1134 1.1134 1.1134 1.1134
multiplier
Sorbent and
Material
Consumables
$/tCO2 72134 (low case 72134 (low case
Adsorbent cost 180137 180137
of 31.5137) of 31.5137)
kgCO2/
Adsorbent emissions 2490 9.690 2490 9.690
tCO2
Water requirement tH2O/tCO2 1.622 1.622 1.622 1.622
Water price $/t 2.22138 2.22138 2.22138 2.22138
Operations
Operating cost136 $/tCO2 6.2135 4.2135 6.2135 4.2135
Maintenance cost136 $/tCO2 20.5135 13.7135 20.5135 13.7135
Based on
1Mt to 100kt O&M
Capex 1.12134 1.12134 1.12134 1.12134
scaling multiplier
ratios
134 Element Energy’s assumption.

135 Cost Analysis of direct air capture and sequestration coupled to low-carbon thermal energy in the United States.
McQueen, N., et al., 2020.
136 Values from the literature are assumed to represent 100kt plant, demand for a 1 Mt plant is back calculated using
scaling.
137 From discussion with Climeworks.
138 Global water tariffs survey 2020- Link
64
Final Report
9.2 Appendix 2: Energy price and emissions assumptions

Electricity assumptions
Table 14: Electricity price and carbon intensity assumptions
Price - Emissions
Electricity kgCO2/MWh
$/MWh
Solar 2020 Low 39.00139 50.9140
Solar 2020 Medium 68.00139 50.9140
Solar 2020 High 85.00139 50.9140
Solar 2050 Low 14.00141 24.8140
Solar 2050 Medium 32.00141 24.8140
Solar 2050 High 50.00141 24.8140
Onshore wind 2019 Low 35.0039 16.4140
Onshore wind 2019 Medium 45.0039 16.4140
Onshore wind 2019 High 55.0039 16.4140
Onshore wind 2040 Low 35.0039 16.4140
1
Onshore wind 2040 Medium 40.0039 16.4140
Onshore wind 2040 High 45.0039 16.4140
Offshore wind 2019 Low 75.0039 16.4140
Offshore wind 2019 Medium 102.5039 16.4140
Offshore wind 2019 High 130.0039 16.4140
Offshore wind 2040 Low 80.0039 16.4140
Offshore wind 2040 Medium 45.0039 16.4140
Offshore wind 2040 High 55.0039 16.4140
Nuclear 2020 Low 65.00142 1222
Nuclear 2020 Medium 105.00142 1222
Nuclear 2020 High 150.00142 1222
Nuclear 2050 Low 65.00142 1222
139 Renewable power generation costs in 2019. IRENA, 2020.

140 Life cycle GHG emissions of renewable and non-renewable electricity generation technologies. Ostfold Research,
2019.
141 Future of solar photovoltaic. IRENA, 2019.
142 World Energy Outlook 2020. IEA, 2019.
65
Final Report
Nuclear 2050 Medium 100.00142 1222
Nuclear 2050 High 110.00142 1222
NG CCS 2019 Low 60.0039 38143
NG CCS 2019 Medium 75.0039 38143
NG CCS 2019 High 90.0039 38143
NG CCS 2040 Low 60.0039 38143
NG CCS 2040 Medium 92.5039 38143
NG CCS 2040 High 125.0039 38143
Grid 2020 Low 70.00144 237142
Grid 2020 Medium 98.00144 237142
Grid 2020 High 156.00144 237142
Grid 2050 Low 108.00144 81142
Grid 2050 Medium 123.00144 81142
Grid 2050 High 158.00144 81142
Geothermal 53.0068 2668
143 100% clean, renewable energy and storage for everything. Jacobson, M. Z., 2020.
144 The future of hydrogen: seizing today’s opportunities. IEA, 2019.
66
Final Report
Heating assumptions
Carbon Engineering’s (CE) system design captures all CO2 released from oxy-combustion of natural gas,
hence heating for CE’s system is assumed to be emissions free, except for upstream methane leakage.
CE natural gas (NG) prices represent prices of natural gas, whereas other NG prices are costs of heat
generation using natural gas at 85% conversion efficiency. This is done because energy demand for liquid
DACCS is given as gas demand whereas energy demand for solids is given as heat demand.
Table 15: Heat energy cost and carbon intensity assumptions
Heat Price - $/MWh Emissions kgCO2/MWh
Nuclear 19.30135 422
Geothermal 7.95145 3.9145
NG 2020- Low 9.39146 267147
NG 2020- Medium 21.12146 267147
NG 2020- High 42.24146 267147
NG 2050- Low 9.39146 267147
NG 2050- Medium 21.12146 267147
NG 2050- High 42.24146 267147
CE NG 2020- Low 8.4739 0
CE NG 2020- Medium 19.0539 0
CE NG 2020- High 38.1139 0
CE NG 2050- Low 8.4739 0
CE NG 2050- Medium 19.0539 0
CE NG 2050- High 38.1139 0
Upstream methane emissions68

GWP for 100 years is used where CH4 is 32 times more harmful than CO2. Upstream methane leakage is
2.3%. Local gas distribution is not included. Upstream and supply chain methane leakage accounts for
0.018 tCO2eq/GJ or 0.065 tCO2/MWh of natural gas. Methane emissions are expected to fall in the future.
OGCI countries have a voluntary target of 2.7% reduction in methane emissions per year38. Considering
that DACCS plants would run 10-30 years, we assume that for FOAK plants 24% leakage reduction (49.4
kgCO2/MWh) is achieved (in 10 years) and for NOAK plants 67% reduction (21.7 kgCO2/MWh) in the next
40 years will be achieved.
145 Geothermal heat data is calculated from geothermal power assuming that heat generation is 100% efficient and
power generation is only 15% efficient. Based on Deutz, S. & Bardow, A., 2021.
146 Natural gas (NG) heat prices are based on NG prices used for liquid technologies (CE NG) but applies an 85% gas
to heat conversion efficiency.

147 Based on 85% efficiency and “Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration: a research agenda.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019.”
67
Final Report
These are the emissions assumed for the liquid DACCS because energy demands provided were for
natural gas. For solids using natural gas, boiler efficiency must be considered. Considering an 85%
efficiency, FOAK methane leakage is assumed to be 61.18 kgCO2/MWh and NOAK is assumed to be 25.6
kgCO2/MWh. Similarly, an efficiency of 60% is applied for future unabated gas plants and 50% for gas CCS
plants when calculating methane leakage from power generation.
68
Final Report
9.3 Appendix 3: CO2 transport and storage cost assumptions

The CO2 transport cost assumptions used in this model are shown in Table 16 and are based on Element
Energy’s internal assessment46.
• Trucking: Low, medium, high are for 25, 50, 100 km. Plant size does not affect cost.
• Shipping: Low/medium/high refer to 100, 300, 1000 km.
• Onshore pipelines: Low/medium/high refer to 50, 100, 300 km.
• Offshore pipelines: Low/medium/high refer to 50, 100, 300 km.
Table 16: CO2 transport cost assumptions
Transport 1 Mt/year plant - $/tCO2 100 kt/year plant - $/tCO2
Trucking- Low 9.21 9.21
Trucking- Medium 13.39 13.39
Trucking- High 21.77 21.77
Shipping- Low 12.65 29.83
Shipping- Medium 13.13 33.25
Shipping- High 17.68 40.55
Onshore pipe- Low 2.96 11.34
Onshore pipe- Medium 4.34 19.09
Onshore pipe- High 11.28 46.75
Offshore pipe- Low 5.12 19.02
Offshore pipe- Medium 8.18 27.53
Offshore pipe- High 19.94 81.69
Low, medium, and high CO2 storage costs used in this study (shown in Table 17) are based on the low,
medium, and high estimates in the ZEP (2010) study47 and the combination of depleted oil and gas
reservoirs or existence of legacy infrastructure. The values are converted from 2010 Euros to 2020 US
dollars.
• Onshore: assumed values are: €2, €4, €10
• Offshore: assumed values are: €3, €9, €14
Table 17: CO2 storage cost assumptions
Both 1 Mt/year and 100 kt/year

Storage plants - $/tCO2
Onshore- Low 3.15
Onshore- Medium 6.30
Onshore- High 15.75
Offshore- Low 4.73
Offshore- Medium 14.18
Offshore- High 22.05
69
Final Report
9.4 Appendix 4: Parameters used for base case analysis

Table 18 below lists the main parameters used to assess base case calculations in this study. References
to the parameters can be found in the rest of the appendix. These parameters do not describe a specific
DACCS configuration but represent fair values which can be seen for global average DACCS systems.
Solar PV costs in 2050 are assumed to be the “high” option ($50/MWh) for the base case. This is due to
the fact that solar is an intermittent source of electricity and operating DACCS continuously is likely to
acquire additional storage or grid balancing costs. IEA’s World Energy Outlook39 calculates a parameter
called value added levelised cost of electricity (VALCOE) which considers the impact of a generation source
on system flexibility. The average VALCOE for the countries included in 2040 for the stated policies
scenario is $50/MWh, which forms the basis of our assumption.
Table 18: Parameters used for base case DACCS LCOD calculations
Parameter FOAK Liquids NOAK Liquids FOAK Solids NOAK Solids
Electricity Solar PV Medium Solar PV High Solar PV Medium Solar PV High

Price and $68/MWh $50/MWh $68/MWh $50/MWh
Emissions 50.9 kgCO2/MWh 24.8 kgCO2/MWh 50.9 kgCO2/MWh 24.8 kgCO2/MWh
Heat Price Natural Gas Medium Natural Gas Low Nuclear Waste Heat Nuclear Waste Heat
and $19.1/MWh $8.5/MWh $19.3/MWh $19.3/MWh
Emissions 49.4 kgCO2/MWh148 21.7 kgCO2/MWh148 4 kgCO2/MWh 4 kgCO2/MWh
Cost of
10% 5% 10% 5%
Capital
1Mt plant: Offshore Pipe 1Mt plant: Offshore 1Mt plant: Offshore 1Mt plant: Offshore
Medium Pipe Medium Pipe Medium Pipe Medium
CO2 $8.2/tCO2 $8.2/tCO2 $8.2/tCO2 $8.2/tCO2
Transport 100 kt plant: Trucking 100 kt plant: Trucking 100 kt plant: Trucking 100 kt plant:
Medium Medium Medium Trucking Medium
$13.4/tCO2 $13.4/tCO2 $13.4/tCO2 $13.4/tCO2
Offshore Pipeline Offshore Pipeline Offshore Pipeline Offshore Pipeline
CO2
Medium Medium Medium Medium
Storage $14.2/tCO2 $14.2/tCO2 $14.2/tCO2 $14.2/tCO2
148
Natural gas use in liquid DACCS systems does not directly emit CO2 since all CO2 from combustion is
co-captured. Emissions shown here are from upstream methane leakage from the natural gas supply chain.
70
Final Report
9.5 Appendix 5: Technoeconomic DACCS data collected from literature

Below are some of the technoeconomic DACCS data gathered during the review of most recent studies.
These are representative values and are not necessarily used in the study.
Table 19: Representative technoeconomic DACCS parameters from selected literature studies
Parameter Liquid Solvent Systems Solid Sorbent Systems
Climeworks (Switzerland),
Main tech developers Carbon Engineering (Canada)
Global Thermostat (USA)
NG only, NG and electricity or Electricity only or electricity and
Energy source
only electricity low temperature low carbon heat
8.81 GJ/tonCO2 NG or 3.4-4.8 GJ/tCO2 heat + 153-
Energy demand 5.25 GJ/tonCO2 NG and 366 306 kWh/tCO2 electricity
kWh/tonCO2 electricity15 (medium estimates)22
90% - potentially lower in 90% - potentially lower in
Load factor
first/earlier year(s) first/earlier year(s)
10 years22 (longer for NOAK, 20
Lifetime 25-30 years15
years)
~0.1 tCO2 per tCO2 captured ~0.06 t/tCO2 (waste heat) or
LCA emissions from air15 with carbon free ~0.19 t/tCO2 (heat pump) w/ solar
electricity PV (80 kgCO2/MWh)90
6- 1730 acres22 (direct and indirect 300-425 acres22 (only core DAC
Land Area
estimates for 1Mt/year capacity) unit, 1Mt/year capacity)
FOAK: $160/tCO2, NOAK:
Nuclear: $192/tCO2,
Capex $66/tCO215 incl, financing and 20%
Geothermal: $200/tCO2135
contingency
$31/tCO2 (NG only), Nuclear: $93/tCO2,
Fuel cost
$29-40/tCO2 (NG + elec)15 Geothermal: $70/tCO2135
FOAK: $42/tCO2, Nuclear: $42/tCO2,
O&M cost
NOAK: $30/tCO215 Geothermal: $42/tCO2135
FOAK: Nuclear: $328/tCO2,
FOAK: $232/tCO2,
Levelised cost of removal Geothermal: $313/tCO2135, NOAK:
NOAK: $126/tCO215
$89-166/tCO222
71
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
Pure Offices, Cheltenham Office Park, Hatherley Lane,
Cheltenham, Glos. GL51 6SH, UK
Tel: +44 1242 802911 mail@ieaghg.org

www.ieaghg.org

Ieaghg 202 - : Global Assessment of Direct Air Capture Cost

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ieaghg 202 - : Global Assessment of Direct Air Capture Cost

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ieaghg 202 - : Global Assessment of Direct Air Capture Cost

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEAGHG Technical Report

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CITATIONS

The IEAGHG manager for this report was: Jasmin Kemper

The expert reviewers for this report were:

• Ajay Ghambir, Imperial College London

IEAGHG, Pure Offices, Cheltenham Office Park

IEAGHG Technical Report

1. Develop a high-level techno-economic model to investigate the costs of DACCS technologies

Methods and Approach

Key TEA Findings

Global Siting Factors

Inclusion of DACCS in IAMs

Current and Future DACCS Policy Support Mechanisms

Expert Review Comments

License-free cover picture sourced from: Pixabay.com

Short and long term DACCS costs

1 IPCC, 2018- Link

Uncertainties • Since no large-scale plant is built to date, inherent uncertainties on most

Global siting factors for DACCS deployment

Inclusion of DACCS in IAMs

Current and future DACCS policy support mechanisms

Recommendations for further work

9Technology readiness and costs of CCS. GCCSI, 2021.

Bioenergy with carbon Lifecycle

CE Carbon Engineering LF Load factor

CfD Contract for difference LHV Lower heating value

ETS Emissions trading scheme RAB Regulated asset base

EU European Union R&D Research and development

GCCSI Global CCS Institute TRL Technology readiness level

GGR Greenhouse gas removal United States Department

1.2 Study aims, objectives and report structure

2. Current status of DACCS and comparison to other NETs

2.1 DAC technology overview

2.2 DACCS technical maturity and current capacities

Figure 5: Technology readiness levels of DACCS value chain technologies17,18,19

17 Energy technology perspectives 2020. IEA, 2020- Link

Figure 6: Breakdown of the current DAC capacity20

Some notable DAC projects under development are:

2.3 DACCS literature and cost projections

20 The DAC MAPP by Carbon 180 [accessed 29 April 2021]- Link

2.4 DACCS in comparison to other NETs

21 IEA ETP 2020 special report on CCUS, 2020.

27 The path to net zero. Climate Assembly UK, 2020.

3.1 Methodology for TEA

Figure 7: Schematic overview of techno-economic input and output parameters,34

Parameter FOAK Liquids NOAK Liquids36 FOAK Solids NOAK Solids

Electricity Solar PV Solar PV Solar PV Solar PV

Figure 8: LCA emissions of liquid and solid 1 MtCO2/year plants37

DACCS short-term costs

39 World Energy Outlook 2020, IEA.

Box 1: A note on CO2 accounting for policy purposes

DACCS longer-term costs

3.3 Sensitivity analysis

Box 2: Impact of learning rates and deployment levels on DACCS costs

3.4 Data availability and uncertainties

3.5 Summary of key messages