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.

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 nameplate24.8 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 to 1,500 psig, followed by pumping to 2,050 psig

Mustang Station Power Plant

Natural GasFEED· University of Texas at Austin· 2022-01-07Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
853,644t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
52.0%
Parasitic load
46MW
CO₂ concentration
3.8%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringAECOM
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration3.8% vol%
Flue gas pressure14 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages3
Compression inlet75 psia
Compression discharge2,015 psia
Description
The University of Texas at Austin, with AECOM Technical Services and Trimeric Corporation, is conducting a FEED study for the Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS) CO₂ capture process at Golden Spread Electric Cooperative’s Mustang Station in Denver City, Texas. Designed for two GE gas turbines with HRSGs and a steam turbine totaling 464 MWe, the PZAS process uses 30 wt% piperazine for higher efficiency, solvent stability, smaller absorber size, and cost savings compared to conventional amine systems. The project will deliver a 30–60% complete design package and a capital cost estimate with ±15% accuracy.

Milton R. Young Power Plant

CoalFEED· Minnkota Power Cooperative· 2023-02-20Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
4,297,145t/yr
Capture efficiency
90.0%
Utilization
85.0%
Parasitic load
83.3MW
CO₂ concentration
8.6%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringFluor
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration8.6% vol%
Flue gas pressure
Compressor nameplate44.4 MW
Compression stages
Compression inlet
Compression discharge1,690 psia
Description
Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 is conducting a FEED study to add a post-combustion CO₂ capture system using Fluor’s Econamine FG Plus™ technology to its lignite-fueled power plant in North Dakota. The design targets 3.6 million tonnes of CO₂ captured annually—twice the scale of the largest existing facility—while integrating advanced heat recovery, aerosol and solvent degradation controls, and cold-climate optimization to achieve the lowest levelized cost of capture at world scale. The study will deliver detailed design, cost, and performance data for financing, permitting, and final project scheduling.