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.

Mustang Station Power Plant

Natural GasFEED· University of Texas at Austin· 2022-01-07Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
853,644t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
52.0%
Parasitic load
46MW
CO₂ concentration
3.8%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringAECOM
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration3.8% vol%
Flue gas pressure14 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages3
Compression inlet75 psia
Compression discharge2,015 psia
Description
The University of Texas at Austin, with AECOM Technical Services and Trimeric Corporation, is conducting a FEED study for the Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS) CO₂ capture process at Golden Spread Electric Cooperative’s Mustang Station in Denver City, Texas. Designed for two GE gas turbines with HRSGs and a steam turbine totaling 464 MWe, the PZAS process uses 30 wt% piperazine for higher efficiency, solvent stability, smaller absorber size, and cost savings compared to conventional amine systems. The project will deliver a 30–60% complete design package and a capital cost estimate with ±15% accuracy.

Nutrien Redwater Nitrogen Operations

AmmoniaFEED· Nutrien· 2024-11-01Project page ↗
CO₂ captured
1,778,645t/yr
Capture efficiency
99.0%
Utilization
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
7.0%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringHatch
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration7.0% mol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge2,614 psia
Description
Studied the replacement of the SMR units with auto-thermal reforming (ATR) technology. ATRs produce a high concentration CO₂ stream, instead of low concentration combustion flue gases, that is more efficient to capture for sequestration. H₂ production from the unit may also be oversized to provide H₂ as a fuel source for the ATR if target overall CO₂ recovery of the facility is not achieved with the replacement of the SMR alone. The facility capacity is based on the total H₂ production requirements of the existing Plant 01 and Plant 09 ammonia synthesis units. 3 | P a g e Public – Approved for external distribution The scope for the study involves the SMR unit replacement with an integrated ATR and downstream syngas purification including CO₂ capture. The project scope also includes an Air Separation Unit (ASU) to supply oxygen to the ATR unit.

CLECO / Brame Energy Center Madison 3 Unit

CoalFEED· Cleco Power· 2025-03-25
CO₂ captured
4,280,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
80.0%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
14.1%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringSargent & Lundy
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration14.1% vol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge2,015 psia
Description
Cleco Power (Cleco) performed a three-phase front-end engineering and design (FEED) study evaluating installation of a carbon dioxide (CO2) Capture System at Madison Unit 3 (MU3), Project Diamond Vault (DV) The work was performed under a Department of Energy (DOE) grant DE-FE0032165. The FEED study included three phases: (1) a feasibility phase which sought to define the scope of the project, (2) a pre-FEED phase which sought to develop a detailed cost estimate, and (3) a final FEED phase which sought to develop the project to be ready to move into execution. The FEED study was completed by Cleco, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America (MHIA), and Sargent & Lundy, LLC (S&L) with oversight provided by the Louisiana Economic Development (LED). The feasibility phase was completed in February 2023, which was followed by the pre-FEED phase which concluded in January 2024. The project subsequently entered the final FEED phase, during this phase Cleco made the decision to stop work on the FEED study due to market conditions which resulted in a project that was not economically viable at the time.