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.
Comparing 3 reports — tab selection applies to every column.
Finnish Market Pulp Mill / Capture of CO2 in the Kraft Recovery Boiler only
Pulp and Paperpre-FEED· VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland· 2016-12-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
1,478,700t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
95.9%
Parasitic load
23.5MW
CO₂ concentration
14.7%mol%
Facility scope
Engineering—
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration14.7% 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 the Kraft Recovery Boiler only
Technology Centre Mongstad
CO₂ captured
5,658,960t/yr
Capture efficiency
70.0%
Utilization
85.0%
Parasitic load
182MW
CO₂ concentration
12.5%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringTrimeric
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration12.5% mol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate—
Compression stages6
Compression inlet6 psia
Compression discharge2,219 psia
Description
Membrane Technology and Research Inc., with Technology Centre Mongstad, Dresser-Rand, Trimeric Corporation, and WorleyParsons/Advisian, is scaling up its advanced Polaris™ membranes for post-combustion CO₂ capture and testing them at engineering scale at TCM in Norway. The Polaris membranes, about 20 times more permeable than prior commercial versions, use a patented selective recycle design to boost CO₂ concentration in flue gas and lower capture costs. The project will design, build, and operate a modular membrane system for a six-month field test, including performance verification, steady-state operation, techno-economic updates, and integration studies with advanced compression technology.
Mustang Station Power Plant
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.