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
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 nameplate43.3 MW
Compression stages8
Compression inlet30 psia
Compression discharge1,515 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

Calpine / Deer Park Energy Center

Natural GasFEED· Calpine· 2023-05-03Project page ↗Cost report ↗
CO₂ captured
500,000t/yr
Capture efficiency
95.0%
Utilization
85.0%
Parasitic load
30.4MW
CO₂ concentration
5.2%vol%
Facility scope
EngineeringSargent & Lundy
Point source approachPost-Combustion Capture
CO₂ concentration5.2% vol%
Flue gas pressure15 psia
Compressor nameplate
Compression stages5
Compression inlet
Compression discharge2,215 psia
Description
Calpine Texas CCUS Holdings LLC, with Electricore Inc., is conducting a FEED study for a modular post-combustion CO₂ capture system at the Deer Park Energy Center NGCC plant in Texas. Using Shell’s commercial-scale amine technology, the system will capture 95% of emissions—about 5 MTPA—while maintaining low energy use and fast reaction rates. The study will include business case, techno-economic, life cycle, environmental, and public policy analyses, including environmental justice and job creation impacts.

Southern Company / Plant Barry

Compression and Dehydration· Trimeric· 2020-02-01Project page ↗Cost report ↗
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