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 both Kraft & Multi-boilers
Pulp and Paperpre-FEED· VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland· 2016-12-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
1,749,600t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
95.9%
Parasitic load
28.5MW
CO₂ concentration
15.0%mol%
Facility scope
Engineering—
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration15.0% 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 & Multi-boilers
Southern Company / Plant Barry
CO₂ captured
4,200,000t/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 nameplate45 MW
Compression stages6
Compression inlet30 psia
Compression discharge2,065 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 Six-stage compression directly to 2,050 psig
Southern Company / Plant Daniel
CO₂ captured
1,769,520t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
—
Parasitic load
79MW
CO₂ concentration
—
Facility scope
EngineeringLinde Engineering (ISBL), Southern Company Services (OSBL)
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration—
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate—
Compression stages—
Compression inlet—
Compression discharge—
Description
Southern Company Services, with Linde Gas North America, is conducting a FEED study for a commercial-scale CO₂ capture system using Linde-BASF’s advanced aqueous amine technology at an NGCC plant of at least 375 MWe. The project will evaluate Alabama Power’s Plant Barry and Mississippi Power’s Plant Daniel to select the optimal host site, define project requirements, optimize process design, and deliver engineering packages along with a cost and schedule estimate within 15% accuracy. The study will build on prior feasibility work and site-specific testing.