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.

Finnish Market Pulp Mill / Capture of CO2 in the Multi-fuel Boiler only

Pulp and Paperpre-FEED· VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland· 2016-12-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
270,658t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
95.9%
Parasitic load
4.4MW
CO₂ concentration
16.8%mol%
Facility scope
Engineering
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration16.8% 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 Multi-fuel Boiler only

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.

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.