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.

Red Trail Energy Richardton Ethanol

Ethanol· Trimeric· 2019-11-20Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
214,255t/yr
Capture efficiency
Utilization
95.9%
Parasitic load
MW
CO₂ concentration
99.9%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringTrimeric
Point source approachEthanol
CO₂ concentration99.9% mol%
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate3.8 MW
Compression stages28
Compression inlet
Compression discharge365 psia
Description
The Red Trail Energy (RTE) ethanol facility in Richardton, North Dakota, is implementing a CO₂ capture and liquefaction system designed by Trimeric. The system captures CO₂ from fermentation, compresses it to ~350 psig, dehydrates and liquefies it using an ammonia refrigeration loop, and purifies it via distillation to remove oxygen and other gases. The liquid CO₂ can be stored for sale or geologic sequestration. The facility is designed to process 587 tonnes/day (scalable to 675 tonnes/day), with nearly complete CO₂ recovery.

Southern Company / Plant Barry

Compression and Dehydration· Trimeric· 2020-02-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
2,400,000t/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 nameplate25.7 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

Technology Centre Mongstad

CoalLarge Pilot· Membrane Technology and Research (MTR)· 2023-08-15Project page ↗Cost report ↗
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.