Tools

Carbon Capture Costs: FEED & pre-FEED Cost Reports

Carbon capture costs from pre-FEED and FEED studies across power, cement, steel, natural gas, hydrogen and other industrial sectors. Browse capital (capex) and operating (opex) cost estimates from publicly available engineering reports, drill down into cost buckets and line items, and compare up to three projects side-by-side.

3 of 3 selectedClear selection46 reports
Comparing 3 reports — tab selection applies to every column.

Rayburn Energy Station / Sherman Power Plant

Natural GasFEED· Bechtel· 2022-03-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
645,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
85.0%
Utilization
57.0%
Parasitic load
67.3MW
CO₂ concentration
6.0%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringBechtel
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration6.0% mol%
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages4
Compression inlet
Compression discharge2,190 psia
Description
Bechtel National Inc., with the Electric Power Research Institute, is conducting a FEED study to retrofit Panda Power Funds’ 758 MWe natural gas combined cycle plant in Sherman, Texas, with a post-combustion CO₂ capture system. Using an open-access design and a conventional amine absorber-stripper system with a non-proprietary solvent such as MEA, the project targets CO₂ capture for enhanced oil recovery.

Holcim / Ste. Genevieve Cement Plant

CementFEED· University of Illinois· 2024-08-29Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
3,056,339t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
85.0%
Parasitic load
60MW
CO₂ concentration
20.3%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringKiewit
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration20.3% mol%
Flue gas pressure16 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge2,215 psia
Description
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is leading a FEED study for a commercial-scale CO₂ capture system at Holcim’s Ste. Genevieve cement plant in Missouri, targeting 95% capture efficiency. Using Air Liquide’s Cryocap™ technology, which combines PSA pre-concentration with cryogenic purification, the system will produce high-purity CO₂ for storage near the Prairie State Generating Company in Illinois. UIUC will manage the project and perform economic and impact analyses, while Air Liquide, Kiewit, Visage Energy, and Holcim will contribute to design, safety, environmental, and site integration efforts.

Southern Company / Plant Barry

Compression and Dehydration· Trimeric· 2020-02-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
4,200,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
Utilization
95.0%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
99.0%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringTrimeric
Point source approachCompression and Dehydration
CO₂ concentration99.0% vol%
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate43.3 MW
Compression stages6
Compression inlet30 psia
Compression discharge2,065 psia
Description
This report summarizes Trimeric’s Phase II work under the SSEB ECO2S project in Kemper County, Mississippi, focused on Task 7 – Infrastructure Development. Trimeric evaluated CO₂ compression and dehydration costs, compared pumping versus compression for dense phase CO₂, and developed pipeline transport cost estimates. Using experience from past projects, screening-level designs and cost estimates were prepared for a nominal 1 MTPY case and scaled to site-specific conditions. Results showed that increasing discharge pressure modestly raises costs, with pumping offering slight savings and operational flexibility but added complexity. Pipeline costs were estimated using NPC benchmarks, while compression and dehydration costs were scaled for Plant Daniel, Plant Miller, and Kemper. Overall, capital costs were roughly three times equipment costs, with electricity for compression as the dominant operating expense. The costs are associated with Six-stage compression to 1,500 psig, followed by pumping to 2,050 psig