Deployment of bioenergy with CO 2 capture and storage (BECCS) is projected to be crucial in reducing the United States' CO 2 emissions intensity. In this paper, we utilize a spatially explicit costing model to evaluate how regional biophysical factors and geography affect BECCS viability. We find that the cost of biomass provision and CO 2 transport and storage are an average of $20/t-CO 2 and $16/t-CO 2 for aquatic and terrestrial BECCS, respectively. Assuming rapid technological development in the CO 2 capture domain, this corresponds to 40-72% of land area in the conterminous United States exhibiting systems integration costs compatible with 2030 carbon prices (median $90/t-CO 2). Results are strongly influenced by the cost of geologic sequestration, in particular storage quality (as driven by depth, permeability, etc.) and available capacity, rather than simply proximity to nearby CO 2 sources. For this reason, the Southeast presents appealing BECCS readiness owing to high biomass productivity (several counties with yield >100 000 dry ton of biomass per year) interspersed with well-explored sinks with large sequestration potential and optimal reservoir quality with permeability >500 mD. We also find that geologic storage capacity is unlikely to be a major biophysical constraint, as sink utilization in most states would likely remain below 10% at the projected rates of BECCS deployment to achieve the 2°C target and as low as 1% in Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama. The analysis also reveals subtle secondary outcomes; for example, to what extent different regions may be well poised to adopt different, complementary negative emissions technologies based on specific confluences of circumstances.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.