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 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
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.
Cleveland Cliffs / Burns Harbor
CO₂ captured
2,800,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
—
Parasitic load
79MW
CO₂ concentration
21.9%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringDastur International
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration21.9% vol%
Flue gas pressure17 psia
Compressor nameplate—
Compression stages6
Compression inlet—
Compression discharge2,215 psia
Description
Dastur International Inc., with Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., is designing a carbon capture system for the 5 mtpa integrated steel plant in Burns Harbor, Indiana, to capture 50–70% of CO₂ emissions from blast furnace gas. The system will combine a gas flow distribution network, a specialized conditioning process, and ION Clean Energy’s solvent-based capture technology with 90–98% efficiency, with water-gas shift reactors enabling higher capture rates. Dastur will lead overall plant integration and engineering, while ION designs the capture island and Dastur Energy optimizes design and energy performance.