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.
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.
Linde / Port Arthur Facility
CO₂ captured
1,435,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
92.0%
Utilization
90.0%
Parasitic load
—MW
CO₂ concentration
16.2%mol%
Facility scope
EngineeringKiewit (EPC costs for Svante’s equipment, steam generators, and OSBL construction), Linde (EPC costs for CO₂ purification/compression and EP costs for OSBL utilities)
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration16.2% mol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate—
Compression stages—
Compression inlet—
Compression discharge—
Description
Linde Inc., with Linde Engineering Americas, Linde Engineering Dresden, and Svante Inc., is completing an initial engineering design for a commercial-scale CO₂ capture plant at its steam methane reforming hydrogen facility in Port Arthur, Texas. Using Svante’s VeloxoTherm™ solid adsorbent technology, the system will capture about 1 million tonnes of CO₂ annually at ≥90% efficiency while producing 99.97% pure “blue” hydrogen. The design will include ISBL units for flue gas conditioning and CO₂ purification, OSBL components, and a techno-economic analysis of capture costs and hydrogen production economics.
Red Trail Energy Richardton Ethanol
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.