The escalating global carbon emissions and temperature rise necessitate the deployment of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies to mitigate climate change. Integrated assessment models (IAMs) suggest that limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires removing 10–20 Gt/y of CO2 throughout the 21st century, alongside sharp emission reductions. CDR technologies encompass both nature-based solutions (e.g., afforestation, reforestation, and improved agricultural practices) and engineered solutions like BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage) and DACCS (Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage). BECCS offers appealing renewable energy generation alongside CO2 removal but may have substantial environmental impacts. DACCS, while possessing high removal potential, faces challenges related to energy consumption and storage capacity. Current CDR deployment is minimal, prompting calls for policy interventions to incentivize wider adoption. Existing literature explores the risks of delayed mitigation but has largely overlooked the specific implications of postponing CDR. This study addresses this knowledge gap by investigating the consequences of delaying BECCS and DACCS deployment within the European Union (EU), a region expected to play a pivotal role in future CDR efforts and committed to climate neutrality by 2050. Using a tailored energy systems model, the research quantifies the increased costs and significantly reduced removal potential associated with delayed CDR action, emphasizing the urgency of early deployment to achieve climate goals in a cost-effective manner.

The literature extensively covers the necessity of CDR for achieving ambitious climate targets, as highlighted by various IAMs and reports from the IPCC. Studies have explored the potential and limitations of different CDR technologies, including BECCS and DACCS. BECCS's potential is discussed in relation to its role in renewable energy production and its potential impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. The challenges associated with DACCS, particularly regarding energy demands and storage limitations, are also well-documented. However, a gap existed in understanding the comprehensive implications of delaying CDR deployment. While the risks of delayed mitigation are discussed, the specific quantitative impact of postponing CDR actions, particularly focusing on BECCS and DACCS in the context of the EU energy system, had not been extensively investigated before this study.

The researchers employed a bottom-up multi-period linear programming model called RAPID (Removal Optimization model) to analyze the consequences of delayed CDR actions. RAPID is an integrated energy systems model that optimizes the power mix and CDR technology deployment (BECCS and DACCS) by minimizing costs or maximizing net negative emissions. The model incorporates various constraints, including technological limitations, resource availability (biomass and land), and technology diffusion rates. The model operates at a country level, considering the EU's 28 member states and their individual characteristics. The temporal resolution is 5-year periods from 2020 to 2100. The model includes various power generation technologies, BECCS (using different biomass sources), and DACCS technologies. Life cycle assessments (LCA) are conducted to account for CO2 emissions throughout the supply chains of these technologies. The model considers CO2 storage capacities, transport of biomass and CO2, and electricity trade between countries. Three scenarios are defined: NOW (CDR deployment starting in 2020), SLOW (starting in 2055), and LATE (starting in 2085). The model is solved for each scenario to determine the optimal technology deployment, CO2 removal, and costs. Uncertainty analysis is performed by considering optimistic and pessimistic estimates of key parameters, such as costs and emissions, using Monte Carlo sampling. The model is implemented using GAMS software and the CPLEX solver.

The study's key findings reveal that delaying CDR deployment leads to substantially increased costs and reduced CO2 removal potential. Each year of inaction in the EU results in an additional cost of 0.12–0.19 trillion EUR to achieve a target of -50 Gt net CO2 emissions by 2100. Delaying CDR from 2020 to 2050 would drastically reduce the removal potential from -73.7 Gt CO2 to -35.6 Gt CO2. This reduction is largely attributed to the underutilization of biomass resources and land, coupled with limitations in technology diffusion rates. The analysis highlights that BECCS plays a dominant role in CO2 removal, especially when deploying early. However, if action is delayed, BECCS capacity becomes constrained due to limited available biomass and land. DACCS complements BECCS, but its potential is also limited by its deployment rate. Regional analysis reveals an uneven distribution of CDR efforts across the EU, with some countries contributing significantly more than others. The optimal deployment strategy involves a combination of BECCS and DACCS, utilizing various biomass sources and considering the geographical distribution of resources and CO2 storage capacity. The study also examines biomass trade, CO2 transport, and electricity exchange among EU countries, finding that transportation costs can influence the optimal location of CDR facilities. The model incorporates uncertainties in cost and emissions data using a Monte Carlo approach, showing robust results regarding the substantial consequences of delayed action.

The findings directly address the research question by quantifying the economic and environmental costs of delaying CDR actions within the EU. The significant increase in costs associated with delayed action underscores the importance of early investment in CDR infrastructure and technology development. The substantial reduction in CO2 removal potential highlights the risk of failing to meet climate targets if CDR deployment is postponed. The results are significant to the field as they provide concrete quantitative evidence of the detrimental impacts of inaction on CDR. This research contributes to the ongoing debate surrounding the role of CDR in climate change mitigation, offering a robust framework for assessing the costs and benefits of different CDR deployment strategies. The findings support the need for proactive policy interventions to encourage early CDR deployment, ensuring a cost-effective and effective pathway to achieving climate goals.

This study demonstrates the substantial economic and environmental penalties associated with delaying the deployment of CDR technologies, particularly BECCS and DACCS, within the EU. The findings underscore the urgency for immediate action to avoid significantly higher costs and the risk of failing to meet climate targets. Future research should focus on further refining the model to incorporate more granular details of policy mechanisms, technology advancements, and international collaborations to optimize CDR deployment strategies. Investigating the interplay between CDR and other climate change mitigation measures is also warranted.

The study's limitations include the reliance on a specific energy systems model (RAPID), which incorporates particular assumptions and data inputs. While uncertainty analysis is performed, certain parameters may still have uncertainties that could impact the results. The analysis focuses primarily on BECCS and DACCS within the EU energy sector and may not fully capture the potential of other CDR technologies or nature-based solutions. Finally, the model assumes a cooperative framework among EU countries, which might not fully reflect the complexities of real-world political and economic dynamics.