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.

Linde / Port Arthur Facility

Hydrogenpre-FEED· Linde· 2023-12-04Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
1,435,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
92.0%
Utilization
90.0%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
16.2%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringKiewit (EPC costs for Svante’s equipment, steam generators, and OSBL construction), Linde (EPC costs for CO₂ purification/compression and EP costs for OSBL utilities)
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration16.2% mol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge
Description
Linde Inc., with Linde Engineering Americas, Linde Engineering Dresden, and Svante Inc., is completing an initial engineering design for a commercial-scale CO₂ capture plant at its steam methane reforming hydrogen facility in Port Arthur, Texas. Using Svante’s VeloxoTherm™ solid adsorbent technology, the system will capture about 1 million tonnes of CO₂ annually at ≥90% efficiency while producing 99.97% pure “blue” hydrogen. The design will include ISBL units for flue gas conditioning and CO₂ purification, OSBL components, and a techno-economic analysis of capture costs and hydrogen production economics.

Finnish Integrated Pulp and Board Mill / Capture of CO2 in both Kraft Boiler & Lime Kiln

Pulp and Paperpre-FEED· VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland· 2016-12-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
1,675,922t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
95.9%
Parasitic load
26.9MW
CO₂ concentration
15.5%mol%
Facility scope
Engineering
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration15.5% mol%
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages4
Compression inlet
Compression discharge1,595 psia
Description
Analysis sets the design and cost-estimating basis for evaluating pulp and board mills with and without CCS. Two base cases are considered: a market pulp mill and an integrated pulp and board mill. Six CCS cases are evaluated, capturing CO₂ from the recovery boiler, multi-fuel boiler, lime kiln, or their combinations. The mills are assumed to be energy independent, with black liquor and bark burned to produce steam and electricity, and excess electricity exported to the grid. The CO₂ capture system uses post-combustion MEA technology with a 90% capture rate, and if on-site electricity is insufficient, an auxiliary boiler firing forest residues will supply the additional energy. Capture of CO2 in both Kraft Boiler & Lime Kiln

Peterhead Power Station (Aberdeenshire)

Natural GasFEED· Shell· Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
1,000,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
Facility scope
Engineering
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge1,754 psia
Description
The Peterhead CCS Project in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, was designed to demonstrate the world’s first commercial-scale post-combustion CO₂ capture from a gas-fired power station. Using amine-based CANSOLV technology, it aimed to capture around one million tonnes of CO₂ annually from one turbine at SSE’s Peterhead Power Station, compress and condition it, and transport it via a new offshore pipeline for injection into the depleted Goldeneye gas reservoir over 2 km beneath the North Sea. The FEED study defined project scope, refined CAPEX and OPEX estimates, and assessed cost uncertainties, providing a basis for the Execute phase while also documenting budget performance and emergent costs during FEED.