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 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
Southern Company / Plant Barry
CO₂ captured
1,000,000t/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 nameplate8.7 MW
Compression stages8
Compression inlet30 psia
Compression discharge1,514 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 8-stage compression to 1,500 psig.
Calpine / Deer Park Energy Center
CO₂ captured
500,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
85.0%
Parasitic load
30.4MW
CO₂ concentration
5.2%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringSargent & Lundy
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration5.2% vol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate—
Compression stages5
Compression inlet—
Compression discharge2,215 psia
Description
Calpine Texas CCUS Holdings LLC, with Electricore Inc., is conducting a FEED study for a modular post-combustion CO₂ capture system at the Deer Park Energy Center NGCC plant in Texas. Using Shell’s commercial-scale amine technology, the system will capture 95% of emissions—about 5 MTPA—while maintaining low energy use and fast reaction rates. The study will include business case, techno-economic, life cycle, environmental, and public policy analyses, including environmental justice and job creation impacts.